Berkley Center

Background: This conversation between Jeffrey Solomon and Katherine Marshall took place at the Bronfman Philanthropies in New York on February 1, 2013. Its primary focus was an ongoing review of religious roots and dimensions of philanthropy. Patterns of giving by American Jews have changed dramatically over the past 50 years. Giving by Jews relative to other communities is high but there have been sharp declines in giving to religious institutions and causes. Solomon notes that almost all the factors that accounted for giving patterns following World War II have changed. He sees this as the American story of individuals living complex identities, and of an approach to philanthropy that seeks clarity on how money is used and for what results. Many religious charities, in narrowing their focus to defense of the community, lose those members who have a broader vision of identity, community, and meaning.

You have reflected on several dimensions of philanthropy over many years. What do you see as major trends in the evolution of Jewish philanthropy over the years?

This is a topic that is of particular interest to me at present. We at the Bronfman Philanthropies have founded a multi-funder initiative using the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy and others to investigate patterns and trends in American Jewish giving. By March, there should be some early solid data. This will be a first, as we have never had such reliable data before. Furthermore, I will be speaking in Washington, D.C. in March at a meeting bringing together leaders of the Jewish community and the Hispanic community, to speak about Hispanic and Jewish views and experiences in philanthropy.

What sorts of links do you see?

There is above all the immigrant experience but both communities are grappling with the links between their community and their American identities.

Some scholarship points to dramatic changes in Jewish philanthropy. After World War II, a large share of American—and especially American religious philanthropy—was given by American Jews, to American Jewish organizations. Today the amounts going to specifically Jewish philanthropy is far smaller and represents only a small part of total Jewish giving. What has happened?

Indeed, there have been enormous changes, and it may be the topic of my next book! Looking historically at the success of some of the major Jewish philanthropies (as best illustrated by the Jewish Federations), in their heyday, from the 1940s through the early 1970s, six major elements explain why Jewish giving was so powerful in building a compassionate community:

(a) Jews were relatively affluent.
(b) Most Jews self-identified as Jews in the first instance.
(c) They were highly conscious of glass ceilings, quotas, and discrimination in American society. There was also keen awareness of the risks to Jewish communities elsewhere. Insecurity was widely felt.
(d) There was an organic connection to Israel, linked to the trauma of the Holocaust. Giving to develop Israel and support the ingathering of Jews took on a notion of redemption.
(e) Philanthropy with a religious cast and to a central organization was largely in the DNA. Jewish communities in Europe had specific religious taxes and these left an imprint in habit and expectation. The Jewish community had a strong sense that it took care of its members, from birth to the cemetery.
(f) There was frankly not that much competition. The great museums, universities, and hospitals were not that keen for Jewish support because they were not that keen to have Jews on their boards.

Today, only the first of these is true. Jews are still relatively affluent.

But the primary self-identification as a Jew has changed. Most Jews, especially those under 50, live their lives in America with multiple identities. Discrimination is largely a problem of the past. Israel is still a pole but without the intensity. A recent study of students on college campuses found that support for Israel among Jewish students was not markedly different from non-Jews. There is a difference among Jews in their 30s (a result of the Birthright bump) but not in younger groups. Today, Jews, like all Americans, want to follow their philanthropy dollar, to know where it goes, and to see what impact it has. Giving to the community for religious reasons has far less appeal and the needs are measurably less, both in the U.S. and overseas. There are a few threatened communities (Syria and Yemen, for example) but the global picture is very different. And the position of Jews institutionally has changed radically. Hospitals, museums, and universities have discovered Jews. Instead of being excluded or marginalized, today Jews are often the leaders, both in management and in giving. The two greatest hospitals in New York City, founded as Protestant Christian organizations, today are led by Jews.

The trends are very clear. In 1972, the Jewish Federation had one million donors. Today there are 400,000 donors. 1948 was in fact the best year for mature city Federation giving. To replicate in today’s dollars what was given then just in New York, $1 billion would be needed. The actual 2012 number was $138 million. Jews represented 18 percent of the total gifts over $10 million. 94 percent of those mega-gifts went to secular causes. The Indiana University research will tell us an interesting story of this moment in time.

The general replaced the particular in Jewish philanthropy, It is syntonic with all changes in American Jewish life as we treasure the diversity of our neighborhoods, workplaces, and friendship networks. It is only a generation or two since glass ceiling existed in major corporations, law firms and other workplaces. Restrictive covenants limited housing opportunities. Quotas limited educational options. How different is life for the American Jew today.

A part of this transformation can be seen in terms of values. Jewish values that account for their philanthropy are values that many people appreciate and so they are less distinctive, less a mark of being Jewish, more of being American. And the spirit of generosity has become more generalized. In some respects, 1971 was the peak year for Jewish philanthropy. That year Whitney Young, CEO of the Urban League, was the keynote speaker at the annual Continental Federation meeting. It was a celebration of Jewish contributions to the Civil Rights Movement. Since then, perspectives of Jewish institutions have become more insular. There is less sense that Jews are contributing to building the larger community, a better country. The appeal is more “how do we develop Jewish schools and community centers?” This is a turnoff for many donors. They want to live in a plural community. The paternalistic tone of the community appeals seem narrow and contrary to their lifestyles.

But the figures on religious giving as a share of American philanthropy still suggest that a large part of charitable giving goes to religious organizations.

Yes, but the data is very uncertain as it is based largely on self-reporting by churches, synagogues, and mosques. There is a gap between what people report and actual behavior (that is similar to other forms of self-reporting like church attendance).

There is also the question of what is religious giving and it is related to questions around the organization of worship. For example, the Jewish Fund for Justice and American Jewish World Service support non-Jewish communities domestically and overseas, respectively, as a manifestation of a Jewish views of social justice. Is that religious giving?

The exception here is the Evangelical communities. There, giving is going through the roof. And I do not know how to answer the question why. Is it related to salvation? The strength of community? The encouragement of pastors? It’s a fascinating subject. This is true even for giving to Israel. Evangelical giving amounts to tens of millions, and most of it is in small gifts, and thus huge numbers of people are involved. The generosity may be related to the way the megachurches are organized, with tight-knit groups that encourage generosity.

Can you see any similar patterns in Muslim or Christian communities?

Yes, but I cannot comment in detail on the patterns in specific communities.

Overall the changes in patterns of giving suggest some tough questions and they permeate discussions of philanthropy in any number of religions. Is philanthropy an act of religious values or is it an act of promulgation of the faith? In a sense that is the ugly question. In some societies it is also about using philanthropy to propagate the faith and to gain political control. Thus indirectly philanthropy, in this instance linked to religion, is a question of power.

In some discussions the realities and myths, pros and cons, of religious charity substituting for government services is an issue. How far is that part of your understanding of what is happening?

I see this as a very slippery slope. Within the Jewish community I am very uneasy about a move to fund Hebrew charter schools, just as in Israel I agree with those who question government funding of kindergartens run by the Islamic movement. What we should be looking to and building is a shared society. I do not think either type of segregated school funding is in the interest of the state. Even if the Charter schools begin with a secular curriculum, before long the issue of culture will arise and religion will creep in, for example in regards to what holidays to celebrate. Though, ironically, most students in Hebrew charter schools are not Jewish.

In discussions about religion and social change, conversations return constantly to gender roles and the subordinate position of women in various religious traditions. Do you see Jewish institutions playing roles in addressing the tensions around the question?

We have a great blessing in our country, which few others share: the notion of separation of church and state. It is a remarkable gift of our founding fathers, and it came long before women had the vote. As they addressed the question of what kind of government we wanted to have, to enhance the kind of society we aim to achieve, they set out clear notions that separated religion from government. Separation of church and state was profoundly smart. It set out to create a public space that is distinct from private space. In private you can act on your own beliefs and no one can second guess you. But in the public space a different behavior is expected, indeed demanded. It goes with the aim of working for a more perfect union. It is a unique aspect of our democracy and it leads to a far healthier social and political system than others, where there are political connections between religious and political bodies.

What priorities might we look to in building on some of the lessons?

The enhancement of civil society, here and around the world, helps to create the understanding of the possibilities of community. We should be encouraging its development in a more serious way. The loss in our own educational system of many of these “social studies” is tragic.

We can do more in teaching religious leaders, pastors, rabbis, and imams, especially, about the common values of the Abrahamic faiths. We often know so little about the “other.” Knowledge is often the prerequisite to change. We should be encouraging greater knowledge.

How did you come to be involved in the philanthropic world?

I was a child of the 1960s, motivated by the rhetoric of change embraced by the Kennedy camp. It was an era of change. I spent substantial time in Mississippi, helping to organize poor people, and returned to New York’s Social Services Department, with an amazing opportunity to observe and participate in change from the top of an organization with a million clients and 27,000 staff. When offered the opportunity to transition to Jewish philanthropy, those same values made it an easy leap.