American Jewish Philanthropy TEST

American Jewish Philanthropy 2022: Giving to Religious and Secular Causes in the U.S. and to Israel

Patrick M. Rooney, Ph.D., Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim, Ph.D., and Jon Bergdoll

Acknowledgements

Dr. Patrick M. Rooney is the Glenn Family Chair in Philanthropy Emeritus; the Executive Associate Dean of Academic Programs Emeritus; and Professor of Economics and Philanthropy Emeritus.

Dr. Rooney was the Principal Investigator of this project and collaborated with the team from start to stop on the survey design, implementation, analysis, and wrote and refined the first drafts of many sections of the report. He is grateful to the Ruderman Family Foundation for commissioning this important and timely report, and appreciative for the hard work so many people have put into getting this complex report completed in such a compelling way.

Jon Bergdoll completed the statistical analysis of the survey data throughout the report. He also verified the data throughout the report and confirmed the appropriate use of verbiage to describe the empirical and technical aspects of the report.

Lake Institute Director Dr. David P. King helped develop the survey and served as our subject matter expert on faith, religiosity, and religious context.

Dr. “Coco” Xiaonan Kou provided budgetary oversight and help in securing skilled labor at each stage. She also translated the concepts into a formal proposal and budget.

Andrea Pactor provided project management until she retired midway through the survey design.

Rebecca Nannery helped ensure quality control and editorial skills from the first draft to report completion. She spent a great deal of time and energy simplifying, unifying, and re-organizing the text to make it more consistent and reader friendly.

Dr. Shawn Landres from Jumpstart Labs

Dr. Shawn Landres helped design the survey, develop the analytical framework, and refine the draft report. He was throughout a key subject matter expert on all things Jewish and Jewish-philanthropic.

Preferred citation: Rooney, Patrick M., Shaul Bar Nissim, Hanna, and Bergdoll, Jon. (2023). American Jewish Philanthropy 2022: Giving to Religious and Secular Causes in the U.S. and to Israel. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy in partnership with the Ruderman Family Foundation.

Dr. Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim condensed an earlier working paper by Dr. Shaul Bar Nissim and Dr. Rooney into the American Jewish Philanthropy Research section and co-wrote the first draft of the American Jewish Giving to Israel-Focused Organizations section of the report. In addition, Dr. Shaul Bar Nissim provided feedback on drafts of the survey and contributed to the writing of the complete report. She was the go-to subject matter expert on Jewish philanthropy throughout the project.

Nicole Chermak co-wrote the first complete draft of the American Jewish Giving to Israel-Focused Organizations section of the full report and provided feedback on the earlier and final versions of the report.

The Giving USA Foundation is a dissemination partner for this report, helping to expand awareness of this new research among philanthropic sector professionals.

SSRS

SSRS fulfilled the survey subcontract and provided a cleaned set of final observations. Its staff worked with our team to refine the survey questions and design, collect the survey data, and add weights to each response to ensure that they adequately reflected the overall United States population and/or their share within a religious group or the portion of the population not affiliated with any religion.

Portions of the survey and analysis for this report are adapted from the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy’s Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS) (2001 et seq), a module of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID); Jumpstart’s 2013 National Study of American Jewish Giving (NSAJG), and the National Study of American Religious Giving (NSARG), developed in collaboration with Indiana University and GBA Strategies; Pew Research Center’s 2019-2020 Survey of U.S. Jews; Brandeis University’s American Jewish Population Project; and the Ruderman Family Foundation and Mellman Group’s 2022 report on two surveys of American Jewish respondents conducted in 2019 and 2021.

Preface

The Ruderman Family Foundation views research as a core part of our mission to expand and share knowledge. This study expands the knowledge and understanding within and outside the Jewish community on a topic we feel strongly connected to – Jewish philanthropy. We are proud to partner with the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy to provide a deep dive into Jewish household giving around the country and provide an up-todate understanding of giving and volunteering trends by community members. In the report presented below we explored giving to religious and non-religious causes, with extra focus on giving to Israel-focused organizations.

The United States has a vibrant Jewish community with strong involvement in a wide range of philanthropic activities. We believe it is important to understand what those activities look like and how this philanthropy is changing over time. Our report discusses giving across demographics and Jewish denominations including motivation factors affecting them and changes to their environments. We explore giving to religious organizations, non-religious organizations, and Israel-focused organizations.

The survey data used in this report was collected during the spring of 2023, prior to the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas and the outbreak of the war. Since then, Jewish and Israelfocused philanthropic organizations have reported a surge of donations from organizations, individuals, and corporations within and outside the American Jewish community. The sustainability of these donations and implications for long-term giving patterns to Jewish causes generally, including concerns about antisemitism, and more specifically Israel-focused organizations and causes in the U.S. should be a subject for a future study–one that utilizes the findings from this report to act as a baseline of giving to Israel-focused organizations.

We hope that the research shared in this report broadens the understanding of Jewish giving while specifying the ways in which this giving occurs in American Jewish households.

Jay Ruderman

President and Chair of the Board

Ruderman Family Foundation

I. Executive Summary

This report examines American Jewish giving and volunteering in 2022, with a strong emphasis on religious giving and giving to Israel-focused organizations. The analyses that make up the findings of the report are based on a survey developed for this study which was conducted by SSRS in March 2023. The survey and these analyses are enhanced by prior studies of Jewish philanthropy.

The subsequent analysis explores how certain factors—household income and wealth, marital status, educational attainment, children living at home, and age—influence philanthropy as demonstrated by prior research (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Rooney et al., 2018; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012) and how those effects differ as compared to non-Jewish households.

This report also contributes to the body of philanthropic research by examining factors that are specific to Jewish philanthropy, including religiosity, engagement in and affinity for the Jewish faith, affiliation with different Jewish denominations, Jewish ethnic backgrounds, and concerns toward and experiences with antisemitism. It delves into motivations for giving and provides detailed information about the largest gifts given by Jewish households. In addition to its contribution related to giving to Israel-focused organizations, the report also details the allocation of gifts to specific types of organizations or causes.

Throughout the report, the following key terms are used:

• Total giving is the sum of gifts survey respondents made during 2022 to a charity for which an individual may legally take a tax deduction. These gifts can be directed to a variety of nonprofits, including religious congregations, private schools, universities, hospitals, food banks, arts and culture organizations, environmental organizations, international and local relief organizations, as well as civil society organizations that support the development of neighborhoods and nations.

• Formal Philanthropy is giving to or volunteering through formal, incorporated charities. Informal philanthropy, such as giving from person-to-person or mutual aid, is not included in this definition. This report is limited to discussing formal philanthropy because of the immense financial resources and time required to collect data about informal philanthropy.

• Congregational Giving includes gifts to organizations whose primary missions include spiritual development and/or proselytizing, such as synagogues, churches, mosques, and temples. Jewish congregations include any type of Jewish spiritual development organization, though respondents were asked to report their donations to religious schools of any sort under education.

• Religiously Identified Organizations (RIOs) are aligned with a religious or faith organization but have a primary mission which is not spiritual development. Examples of these include Jewish Federations, Jewish universities, Catholic Relief Services, religiously driven homeless shelters, and countless others. These charities are often formed because the members of a faith group desire to serve their faith, but the primary mission of the charity is not spiritual development. In most research, these organizations are counted along with non-religiously identified organizations (defined below) as secular charities. This research project seeks to refine and respect the

religiosity of these organizations while distinguishing them from congregations.

• Jewish/Religious Giving as used in this report includes both congregational and RIO giving, as well as giving to Israel-focused organizations.

• Non-Religiously Identified Organizations (NRIOs) are treated in this study as secular charities. These are the charities in so many nonprofit fields like food banks, colleges, universities, hospitals, environmental, and animal organizations, but unlike RIOs, NRIOs are not affiliated with any faith organization.

GIVING TRENDS IN AMERICAN JEWISH PHILANTHROPY

The broad findings of the report reinforce earlier findings about the landscape of American Jewish philanthropy: Jewish households give more overall and give to NRIOs at a higher rate than nonJewish households, but these differences may be attributed to demographic differences. Otherwise, incidence rates of giving and volunteering are similar for Jewish and non-Jewish households.

Tables 1 and 2 highlight the differences and similarities between giving by survey respondents representing Jewish and non-Jewish households in 2022. The average amount donated by Jewish households ($7,646) is 35% greater than that of non-Jewish households ($5,676). When households that did not make any donations are excluded from the analysis, the average gift size by Jewish and non-Jewish donor households differed by over $2,500, or 32% ($10,588 donated versus $8,025, respectively). However, when these amounts are statistically analyzed by accounting for differences in household socioeconomic data, Jewish households neither give more nor at higher rates than non-Jewish households. Thus, while Jewish households give larger donations than non-Jewish households, these differences are not because of differences in philanthropic propensities but are due to differences in household demographics.

Upon grouping the organizations to which respondents donated into congregations, RIOs, and NRIOs, statistical analysis yielded more nuanced results. Jewish households give at a higher rate to non-Jewish causes (NRIOs) than non-Jewish households (67% versus 59%, respectively), though this difference was not statistically significant.

TABLE 1: INCIDENCE OF JEWISH AND NON-JEWISH HOUSEHOLD GIVING

TABLE 2: JEWISH AND NON-JEWISH HOUSEHOLD GIVING

ALL GIFTS TO NRIOS

Mean (all respondents) Mean (donors only)

(donors only)

Mean (all respondents)

Mean (donors only)

Median (donors only)

Mean (all respondents)

Mean (donors only)

(donors only)

Mean (all respondents)

Mean (donors only)

Median (donors only)

Mean (all respondents)

Mean (donors only)

Median (donors only)

Jewish households give to a variety of subsector causes associated with both RIOs and NRIOs (Table 3). The most frequently supported causes relate to basic needs, healthcare, organizations with combined purposes, and education. International organizations (that are not Israel-focused) received the largest average donation, totaling almost twice that of the average donation to the next largest recipient category. However, this result is due to large outlier gifts; other causes, civic advocacy, education, and combined purpose organizations also received larger median donations. International, civic advocacy, and other causes command the highest percentage of Jewish giving to NRIOs (69%, 60%, and 60%, respectively).

TABLE 3: JEWISH CAUSE-RELATED GIVING TO NON-CONGREGATIONAL CHARITIES

Most frequently supported causes

BASIC NEEDS (55% OF RESPONDENTS): Food banks, homeless shelters, low-income housing

HEALTHCARE (40%): Hospitals, medical research, low-income medical clinics

COMBINED PURPOSES (35%):

Local United Ways, Jewish Federations

EDUCATION (27%): Universities, scholarships, and libraries

OTHER CAUSES NOT LISTED: 20% each except neighborhoods (16%)

Largest average donations

INTERNATIONAL ($5,429): Disaster relief, migrant rights (does not include giving to Israel-focused organizations)

OTHER CAUSES NOT LISTED ($2,977)

CIVIC ADVOCACY ($2,200): Civil, human, and voting rights

EDUCATION ($2,186): Universities, scholarships, and libraries

COMBINED PURPOSES ($2,117): Local United Ways, Jewish Federations

GIVING TO RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR

The incidences of donating and volunteering to formal organizations are effectively the same regardless of whether the respondent was Jewish or non-Jewish. Twenty-six percent of both Jews and non-Jews volunteer and donate, and nearly half donate but do not volunteer. However, very few volunteer but do not donate, and nearly one-quarter of both Jewish and non-Jewish households report neither volunteering nor donating to philanthropic causes.

KEY FINDINGS: JEWISH PHILANTHROPY IN THE UNITED STATES

The key findings about American Jewish philanthropy in this report cover a range of topics, including new findings about the complex ways in which Jewish identity interacts with philanthropic giving behaviors:

• Experiences with or concerns about antisemitism are associated with increases in Jewish giving, especially if a respondent reported personally experiencing or someone in their household experiencing antisemitism. Those who are concerned with antisemitism donate more in total and to congregations than those who are not. The difference is most stark among those who had experienced antisemitism. Jews who experienced antisemitism give almost 10 times more at the total giving level than those who had not.

• The largest gifts from Jewish households are most often given to Jewish congregations.

• Family composition is important in Jewish giving. Jewish survey respondents who have a Jewish partner are more likely to give and give more generously than respondents with a nonJewish partner. This applies to all donations reported and to Jewish congregational giving. Additionally, Jewish households with children at home are more likely to give and give more generously than households without children at home.

• Giving varies by Jewish ethnicity in complex ways—Ashkenazi households are more likely to give and give more generously in terms of total giving than Sephardi households. However, Mizrahi households give more generously to Israel-focused organizations than Ashkenazi households.

• Strong identification with the Jewish identity—such as considering Jewish heritage to be important, holding strong religious or spiritual beliefs, or frequently attending services—is associated with increases in giving. This relationship is true for different measurements of religiosity and all giving variables: total giving and giving to congregations, RIOs, and NRIOs. In other words, the stronger the Jewish identity, the more generous an American Jew is expected to be.

In addition to giving in general, Jewish survey respondents were asked about their giving to Israel-focused organizations, which are defined as nonprofit recipients in Israel or United States-based nonprofits dedicated to Israel-focused purposes. Highlighted findings include:

• Twenty-five percent of American Jews give an average gift of $2,467 per household to Israel-focused organizations and causes.

• Single men are more likely to give and give more to Israel-focused organizations than single women or married couples.

• Increases in income and wealth among Jewish households are associated with increases in giving to Israel-focused organizations.

• Households who view their Jewish identity as very important are more likely than those who view it less strongly to make a gift, to make a larger-sized gift, and to give a larger share of their total giving to Israel-focused organizations.

While this executive summary highlights selected findings from the analysis, the body of the report contains additional findings in greater detail.

IMPLICATIONS FOR JEWISH PHILANTHROPY

What do these results mean for charities, fundraisers, and other donors? Jewish donors are generous: In 2022, three quarters of Jewish households donated an average of $10,588 to religious and charitable purposes. They are prospective donors to many charities, but not equally so—two-thirds gave to NRIOs, less than half gave to RIOs, and only two-fifths gave to congregations. Knowing that there are many causes to which Jewish households may give, charities must exercise care when seeking gifts.

Twenty-five percent of Jewish households surveyed report specifically giving to Israel-focused organizations in 2022. Those who report that being Jewish is of greater importance in their lives are more likely to donate to Israel-focused organizations . They are also more likely to give larger gifts and give a larger proportion of their overall giving to these organizations. This is good news for charities that raise money for Israel-focused causes.

Future research using the data collected for this report will delve more deeply into philanthropic comparisons between Jewish donors and donors of other faiths. It will also examine some of the findings in this report in a more nuanced fashion, such as better understanding the linkages between observed religious behavior and introspective religious values. Analyses such as this will provide charities and fundraisers with more tools to attract donors to give to a variety of organizations and causes.

II. American Jewish Philanthropy Research from 2000 to 2020

The Jewish community is an important part of the fabric of American philanthropy. Tobin et al. noted that Jews are “remarkably generous givers to the general society” (2003, p. 1). Estimates of American Jewish giving total ranged between $6 and $9 billion annually for various years between 2000 and 2015 (Shaul Bar Nissim, 2018; Wertheimer, 2018). Most Jewish gifts of $1 million or more go to nonJewish causes (94%), including health, arts, and educational institutions (Tobin et al., 2003; Tobin & Weinberg, 2007), with larger organizations receiving a greater share of these large donations.

An overview of research on American Jewish philanthropy since 2000 suggests that while the knowledge about this field is growing, additional research is necessary to understand the scope and trends of giving, changes in organized Jewish giving, generational succession sustaining Jewish philanthropy, and the growing importance of donor-advised funds. Studies on American Jewish philanthropy since 2000 have focused on several themes (Shaul Bar Nissim & Rooney, 2023). Below is a short review of studies focused on identity, engagement, and sociodemographic characteristics.

IDENTITY AND GIVING

National and local studies of the Jewish community explored individual giving to Jewish causes (Aronson et al., 2019; Lugo et al., 2013). Dashefsky and Lazerwitz (2009) analyzed the National Jewish Population Surveys of 1971, 1990, and 2000-2001 to examine the philanthropic giving behaviors of Jewish families, indicating that Jewish families were more likely to donate money than to volunteer. Socioeconomic variables, such as family income, Jewish denomination, and synagogue membership were found to have a moderately positive effect on giving to Jewish causes. Generational variables affected giving to nonJewish causes, with higher levels of giving by those belonging to multigenerational American families.

Connected to Give is an important series of reports (Cohen & Landres, 2014; Dean-Olmsted et al., 2014; Gerstein et al., 2013, 2014; Gerstein & Landres, 2013; McKitrick et al., 2013) that analyzes data from the National Study of American Jewish Giving (NSAJG) and the National Study of American Religious Giving (NSARG). Connected to Give reported strong correlations between engagement with religious institutions, religious affiliation, and levels of philanthropic giving to all causes. In 2012, almost three-fourths of American household charitable giving went to religious organizations. Forty-one percent of giving was directed to religious congregations and one-third (32%) to RIOs (McKitrick et al., 2013).1 Among Jewish Americans, three-quarters (76%) reported making charitable contributions to both Jewish and non-Jewish causes. However, younger generations reported giving less frequently to Jewish organizations than older generations. Approximately three-fifths of their charitable giving went to Jewish organizations, inclusive of both congregations and other Jewish nonprofit organizations (Cohen & Landres, 2014).

Some studies have found unique patterns in Jewish giving. After controlling for demographic and socioeconomic differences, McKitrick et al. (2013) found that Jews were more likely than the other groups to give to non-religious organizations (56%). As much as 39% of total donations by Jews

went to non-Jewish causes. Jewish giving was also unique in that 23% of Jewish households had a planned charitable bequest, a result that was significantly higher than that of the non-Jews sampled in the survey while controlling for other characteristics. However, overall patterns of Jewish giving were like other denominations: “among ...Black Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, Jews, Mainline Protestants, and Roman Catholics there are no significant differences in giving rates to congregations and charitable organizations overall, except that Jews give at lower rates to congregations” (McKitrick et al., 2013, p. 16).

Multiple studies have found that Jewish households are generous. The Giving USA Special Report: Giving to Religion (Austin, 2017) analyzed responses from 9,000 households in the Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS), finding that Jewish households give more overall than those of other religious backgrounds. Importantly, the amount was not significant after controlling for income. Rooney (2010) conducted a comparative assessment of the scope of giving by Jewish and by other faith communities and found that 88% of Jews gave a portion of their income to charity. A subsequent study found that 76% of Jewish households gave to charity in 2012, compared to 63% of other religious and non-religious Americans (Gerstein et al., 2013; McKitrick et al., 2013). The average Jewish household donated $2,526 to charity annually, far more than their Protestant ($1,749) and Catholic ($1,142) counterparts (Austin, 2017). Rooney’s earlier research offers a similar story, with Jews contributing an annual average of $3,822. Only Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) made a greater contribution. Despite finding that Jewish donors gave the second lowest percentage (41%) of total giving to religious causes, Rooney concluded that Jews are more likely to contribute to religious causes than donors of other faiths after controlling for secular giving by Jewish communities.

Rooney (2010) found that there are large swings in average giving to religion by all Jewish households ($888) compared to the average among Jewish donors ($2,291). In that research, giving to religion only included gifts to religious institutions whose primary missions related to spirituality. It is possible that many Jewish households donated to other Jewish organizations that are connected to their faith but are not counted as religious giving in the PPS or in Giving USA, such as Jewish Federations.

39% of total donations by Jews are to non-Jewish causes

Fleisch and Sasson (2012) assessed the transfer of funds to Israel via four types of U.S. based Israelfocused fundraising organizations: Federations, “friends of” organizations, pass-through organizations,2 and umbrella funds that fundraise for specific ideological causes in Israel. They found that between 1994 and 2007, giving to these Israel-focused organizations nearly doubled, from $1 to $2 billion, representing approximately half of all philanthropic support for these organizations. More recently, Shaul Bar Nissim (2018) identified a drop in the percentage of this institutional giving to organizations in Israel, from 14% in 2000 to 9% in 2015.

Recent research (Shaul Bar Nissim, 2019) found that new philanthropic practices contributed to the creation of a new Jewish Diaspora philanthropy. Characterized by new missions, goals, and activities in Israel, it pointed to a shift in the extent of donor engagement in decision making.

Between 1994 and 2007, giving to Israel-focused organizations doubled from $1 to $2 billion, comprising half of their philanthropic support

GROWTH

The complex structure of American Jewish philanthropy presents a challenge to the tracking of granting and re-granting activities. Thousands of intermediary and conduit organizations would need to be tracked to map the paths of Jewish charitable gifts. Thus, there is a debate of what constitutes Jewish philanthropy. The preceding review suggests that charitable activities of sub-groups of the Jewish community are difficult to track. While challenging to execute, future research on Jewish philanthropy must include Haredi groups that developed specialized philanthropic systems and giving patterns of Sephardi and Israeli Jews.

There is a gap between the number of publications and the need to establish consistent scholarship about Jewish philanthropy, with a strong foundation in the theory and analytical frameworks of philanthropic studies. Thus, the literature is limited in its understanding of the undocumented patterns of giving, which makes future research on these groups difficult but valuable.

2 Pass-through organizations function similarly to “friends of” organizations, but do not necessarily partner with a particular agency abroad.

UNDERSTANDING GIVING: ROOM FOR

III. Data and Methodology

Using prior research on philanthropy and Jewish philanthropy, the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy and other members of the project team (as listed in the Acknowledgements) designed a survey to capture a broad array of philanthropic data about Jewish households in the United States in 2022. The survey included questions about giving and amounts given to various types of organizations (congregations, RIOs, NRIOs, and Israel-focused organizations and causes), Jewish faith and culture, giving motivations, and other topics, as well as demographic and socioeconomic data.

The survey and market research firm SSRS was hired to implement the survey. To do so, it used a combination of its probability panel and nonprobability panel partners. In addition to the Jewish sample surveyed, a supplement of non-Jewish adults aged 18 and older was added, allowing a comparison between Jewish and non-Jewish giving. Survey data collection was conducted through a web-based survey between March 8 and March 29, 2023. SSRS ensured that households without the technology to complete the online survey had the ability to respond. A total of 3,115 surveys were completed, and the survey response rate was 40%. Approximately two-thirds of the responses were from Jewish households and one-third were from non-Jewish households.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish samples were stratified separately by personal characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity, and education to ensure representation within each demographic group.

A total of 3,115 surveys were completed, and the survey response rate was 40% Approximately two-thirds of the responses were from Jewish households and one-third were from non-Jewish households

Of the Jewish portion of the survey sample, a total of 5,834 individuals were invited to participate in the survey, and 2,350 completed the full survey. Table 4 summarizes some of the characteristics of the weighted Jewish household sample, which is discussed most often in the report. The proportion of other survey variables are mentioned in the text.

Much of the analysis discussed in this report is focused on the Jewish portion of the survey response data. It was weighted or benchmarked based on data and methods from the Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center, 2021b). This ensured that it would be representative of the general population of Jews and was applied separately to self-identified religious and non-religious Jews. The variables that were weighted include age, educational attainment, gender, marital or partner status, political party affiliation, and U.S. Census region. The weights were then adjusted to account for the underrepresentation of Orthodox Jewish households in the sample, which accounted for 6% of this sample prior to this step, versus 12% in the Pew Research Center findings. This weighting accounts for Ultra-Orthodox respondents who are a smaller part of the Jewish population and are much less likely to complete an online panel survey. To minimize the impact of this additional dimension on the design effect, a midpoint of nine percent, between the benchmark (12%) and the estimate obtained without this additional step (6%), was used (Pew Research Center, 2021a, 2021b).3

After this process was completed, the Jewish and non-Jewish weighted groups were combined again and adjusted to weight the Jewish share by the Pew Research Center’s estimated population prevalence among the United States adult population (2.4%) so that the full sample of households could be used to represent the general United States population.

TABLE 4: JEWISH RESPONDENT SUMMARY STATISTICS

Four motivation clusters were defined and used in certain parts of the analysis. These were constructed as means across the included Likert scale motivation questions for each cluster. The motivation survey questions included in each cluster are presented later in this report.

A Jewish Engagement Index was created as a proxy to represent Judaic religiosity. The index consisted of four groups: Orthodox Jewish respondents and three groups of non-Orthodox Jewish respondents. The latter three groups were differentiated by their respective levels of religious engagement, as measured in five separate variables which were combined using principal component analysis. This non-Orthodox Jewish population was split into three roughly even groups based on this constructed measurement of engagement level, while the Orthodox respondents were given a fourth value. The index was created this way because Orthodox Jewish patterns of identity, religious practice, and charitable giving are substantially different from those of non-Orthodox Jews (Cohen & Landres, 2014; Gerstein et al., 2013). Analyzing the variables representing religiosity without implementing the Jewish Engagement Index could obscure important findings such as age and income patterns.

LIMITATIONS

Like any study, there are limitations to this research. There may be sources of bias in any survey data, such as the sample being surveyed not mirroring the target population or the characteristics of the respondents not representing the characteristics of the sample, incomplete surveys, and the accuracy of respondent memory and the veracity of the responses.

Any random sample of households will contain some high-income and high-net-worth households, but philanthropic giving is biased in the sense that those with higher incomes and higher wealth holding tend to donate a disproportionately higher share of total giving (Rooney et al., 2018). Similarly, this sample is a random sample with some higher income and high-net-worth households, but it is not a sample targeted at high income or high net worth households. As a result, the respondents are more representative of American households, but the sample does not capture enough high net worth households to allow for fine-grained detail about them in the analysis.

This is a cross-sectional study that asks individuals at a single point in time about information that is current, recent, or from long ago. While some people have excellent memory recall, others may struggle to recall past events, especially memories that are more distant. This can be partially remedied by using prompts about a given issue. Prompts were provided for the philanthropy questions, but time and budget did not permit the number of detailed prompts needed to maximize accurate responses for every question. Another way to capture changes more accurately over time is a panel study. A panel study design surveys the exact same households repeatedly over time, reducing the likelihood of inaccurate responses. However, panel studies are complex and expensive to implement, so the authors of this study took the approach of limiting questions about events prior to 2022 to minimize respondent fatigue and maximize recall accuracy.

The survey conducted as a part of this study provides a broad range of data that was used to generate insights and knowledge about American Jewish philanthropy as it is manifested through American Jewish households.

ANALYSIS

In this report, basic summary statistics are reported throughout. This includes means (averages) and medians (the middle value of a set of numbers) of total giving and frequency of responses in specific categories of the variables (individual or groups of questions from the survey). Crosstabulations of the categories of two different variables were also employed.

Multiple regression models, referred to as “statistical models” in the body of the report, were used to isolate the relationship between two variables, such as total giving and degree of religiosity, to understand if changes in giving and degree of religiosity related to each other while controlling for other variables, which is referred to as statistical significance. These models include variables which the scholarly literature has shown are related to giving (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Rooney et al., 2018; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012) and thus help account for some of the differences in giving across survey respondents that are not caused by the independent variable(s) of interest such as religiosity. The standard set of control variables used in this report are the following: age in years, gender, marital status, household income, household net worth (which is referred to as wealth), educational attainment, race and ethnicity, frequency of attendance of religious services, the presence of minor children (age 18 and older) in the home, and the location of the respondent in four United States Census Regions.

Some of the regression models tested variables to determine if they have statistically significant relationships to several different amounts measuring donations (e.g., total giving, congregational giving, RIO giving, and NRIO giving). The variables tested include household affiliation with Jewish denominations such as Orthodox and Reform; Jewish ethnicity as Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Other; and variables that were created from clusters of questions related to engagement and motivations for giving. Perceptions of and experiences with antisemitism were also tested. Because of the non-normal distribution of giving amounts, a log transformation of giving amounts were used in the statistical regression models.

Finally, a special note about the use and meaning of the term “statistical significance” in this report: When these words are used, it does not attach any ethical or social judgment to a finding. Rather, “statistically significant” signals that the relevant variable has a probability value (or p-value) of p<0.05 in the relevant regression model. Similarly, “weakly significant” is used when the p-value is <0.1.

Whether a given variable has attained significance and whether it increases or decreases when total giving (or whichever dependent variable is being referenced) increases is reported. It is important to remember that the analysis only addresses whether a relationship between two variables analyzed is statistically significantly related – it does not claim that one variable causes another one to change.

IV. Jewish Giving in the United States

According to the survey data collected as a part of this study, three-fourths (74%) of Jewish households were donors in 2022, which is two percentage points higher than non-Jewish households (72%). Jewish households give more than other households: The mean (average) donation amount for Jewish households ($7,646) is 35% greater than that for non-Jewish households ($5,676). When households that do not donate are excluded from the analysis, the means of household donations also differed by over $2,500 or one-third (32%) at $10,588 for a Jewish household versus $8,025 for a non-Jewish household).4

Despite the large difference between Jewish and non-Jewish donations, these are not statistically significant. This suggests that the difference in giving amounts between the Jewish and non-Jewish sample can mostly be explained by differences in the two groups among the other household variables being controlled for which are also related to giving, such as income, wealth, and educational attainment (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Rooney et al., 2018; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Thus, the difference in amounts donated is not due to unique philanthropic propensities between group of different religious beliefs, but differences in household demographics.5

GIVING TO RELIGIOUS CHARITIES

Giving to religious charities includes all religious charities (all types of congregations, all RIOs, and giving to Israel-focused organizations).

Jewish households are less likely than non-Jewish households to donate to any religious charities (53% versus 61%), but those who donate give larger gifts than non-Jewish households. The annual mean donations of Jewish and non-Jewish households who give to religious charities are $9,275 and $4,242, respectively.6 Considering other socioeconomic household characteristics, Jewish households are less likely to give and less likely to give generously. While this may seem counterintuitive, it reveals that while Jewish households give more on average to religious charities than their non-Jewish counterparts, Jewish households give less to religious charities than predicted based on household demographics like income, wealth, and educational attainment.

4 The median, or middle-value gift among all donor households is also one-third greater for Jewish donor households than for non-Jewish donor households ($1,300 versus $960). The large difference between the mean and median values suggests a non-normal distribution in gift size, which is common for studies of giving. This indicates that there are a smaller number of donors making larger than typical gifts, which inflates the mean of typically sized gifts.

5 This difference is clear in the data: Twenty percent of Jewish households have incomes over $200,000 compared to 6% of non-Jewish households, and 29% of Jewish respondents have at least a master’s degree compared to 12% of non-Jewish respondents.

6 The median donations of Jewish and non-Jewish households are $800 and $550, respectively.

Among gifts given to religious congregations, the likelihood of making a gift is similar for Jewish versus non-Jewish households, at 41% and 44%, respectively. However, the difference in size of congregational gift by Jewish donor versus non-Jewish donor households is large but not statistically significant. In 2022, mean congregational giving by Jewish donors versus non-Jewish donors is $3,260 and $2,389, respectively.7

An important contribution of this study is that surveyed households were asked about giving to congregations within their own faith group and to congregations outside their faith group. Table 5 summarizes these totals by Jewish and non-Jewish households.

Just over one-third of Jewish households (36%) donate to a Jewish congregation such as a synagogue or temple. Of those that donate to a Jewish congregation, the mean amount given is $2,532.8 About half as many Jewish households (18%) report giving to a non-Jewish congregation whose primary purpose is religious activity or spiritual development. However, of Jewish households that donate to non-Jewish congregations, the mean value of their gifts is $2,329, which is close to the mean value of gifts to Jewish congregations ($2,532).9

TABLE 5: GIVING TO CONGREGATIONS INCLUDING INTERFAITH GIVING

question text for Jewish respondents

Did you [or your spouse/partner] pay membership dues, fees, or contributions to a Jewish religious congregation, such as a synagogue, temple, minyan, havurah, or other Jewish congregation? Please do not include religious school tuition fees, or donations to schools, hospitals, and other charities run by Jewish organizations. We will ask you about those donations later.

Not counting any of the donations you have already told us about, in 2022 did you [or your spouse/partner] make any donations to a non-Jewish religious congregation or group whose primary purpose was religious activity or spiritual development, for example to a church, mosque, TV or radio ministry? Again, please do not include donations to schools, hospitals, and other charities run by religious organizations.

In 2022, did you [or your spouse/partner] make any donations to a [INSERT DENOMINATION] religious congregation or group within your own local community whose primary purpose was religious activity or spiritual development , for example to a church, synagogue, mosque, TV or radio ministry? Please do not include donations to schools, hospitals, and other charities run by religious organizations.

Did you [or your spouse/partner] make any donations to any other organization within your faith tradition whose primary purpose is religious activity or spiritual development in 2022? Please do not include religious school tuition fees, or donations to schools, hospitals, and other charities run by that organization. We will ask you about those donations later.

Not counting any of the donations you have already told us about, during 2022 did you [or your spouse/partner] make any donations to any other religious congregation or group even those outside of your own faith tradition whose primary purpose was religious activity or spiritual development, for example to another church, mosque, TV or radio ministry? Again, please do not include donations to schools, hospitals, and other charities run by religious organizations. We will ask you about those donations next.

7 Median giving between the groups is similar ($567 versus $550).

8 The median of Jewish household donations to a Jewish congregation is $550.

9 Despite this similarity, the median gift size is strikingly lower ($200) than the median gift size to Jewish congregations ($550), suggesting that some larger donors to non-Jewish congregations are responsible for driving up the mean from that of the typical donation.

As in Table 6, Jewish households have a lower donation rate to any congregation of their own or another faith by almost four percentage points. On the other hand, Jewish households donate more money to congregations overall. However, neither of these differences between Jewish and non-Jewish households are statistically significant when holding constant for other household characteristics.

TABLE 6: GIVING TO CONGREGATIONS

GIVING TO NON-RELIGIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ORGANIZATIONS

When donations to NRIOs are compared, Jewish households have a higher giving rate than nonJewish households (66% versus 59%). Among households that donate to NRIOs, the data was mixed, as non-Jewish households have a larger average ($5,271 versus $4,079) while Jewish households have a larger median ($600 versus $313). None of the differences are statistically significant after controlling for income, wealth, educational attainment, and other socioeconomic factors.

Details on incidence, amounts, and percent of all gifts (by dollar) going to religious or Jewish organizations in different charitable subsectors are included below in Table 7.

TABLE 7: JEWISH HOUSEHOLD GIVING BY CAUSE

Respondents were asked about the primary purpose of their largest donation in the prior year. The most likely recipient of a Jewish household’s largest gift is a Jewish congregation (32% of the largest gifts). The next three most likely recipients of a Jewish household’s largest gift are charities that help those in need of food, shelter, etc. (15%), followed by healthcare or medical research (12%) and charities with “other purposes than listed” (11%). All other types of charities which are the recipients of the largest donations are below 10%.

The data shows that most of the largest gifts are not what professional fundraisers would consider large gifts: Fifty-five percent are less than $500 and a total of two-thirds (65%) are less than $1,000. Another 20% report their largest gift to be between $1,000 and $4,999. Thus, 85% of Jewish survey respondents report that their largest gift to any one charity in 2022 is less than $5,000 (similar to non-Jewish households, for whom 91% of reported gifts are less than $5,000). In contrast, 4% of Jewish household give gifts larger than $100,000 in 2022, including 1% whose largest gift is $1 million or more (for non-Jewish households, only 0.3% of their largest gifts are larger than $100,000). Of the largest gifts, 44% are directed to a Jewish organization, suggesting that among Jewish households, almost half of households’ largest gifts are given to Jewish causes.

Household Characteristics and Giving

RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race and ethnicity do not significantly affect the likelihood of donating or the amounts donated among donors, holding other household characteristics constant. In other words, households of different races and ethnicities of approximately equal incomes, wealth, education, and marital status are approximately equally likely to give, and those who donate give similar amounts.

There are some statistically significant differences by race and ethnicity among the types of gifts given. For example, among Jewish households, Asian households are more likely to donate to religious causes and to donate greater amounts to religious causes than White households, holding all other variables constant. These results should be treated cautiously, as the number of JewishAsian responses in our sample is small at 45 households.

JEWISH ETHNICITY AND DENOMINATION

Jewish ethnicity refers to descent from historic Jewish ancestral regions, the most common of which are Ashkenazi, broadly originating from Central and Eastern Europe; Sephardi, originating from Spain and Southern Europe; and Mizrahi, originating from the Middle East and North Africa.

Table 8 lists both total giving and congregational giving for each Jewish ethnicity, as well as other ethnicities not represented by the three most common, and for households which identified as Jewish but did not identify any ethnicity. There are large and statistically significant differences among Jewish ethnicities among our giving measurements.

Ashkenazi Jews had the highest incidence of overall giving (80%). When controlling for household demographics, Sephardi households and Jewish households that did not identify an ethnicity are less likely to give and give less overall.

While not as descriptively clear-cut, the giving distribution of charitable dollars followed similar patterns, as Sephardi households and Jewish households that did not identify an ethnicity are less likely to give and give less generously to congregations, RIOs, and NRIOs compared to Ashkenazi households. All differences between incidences and amounts donated are significant, though the difference between the incidence of Sephardi and Ashkenazi NRIO giving is weakly significant. Mizrahi Jews give statistically significantly more to Israel-focused organizations compared to Ashkenazi Jewish households when controlling for socioeconomic household characteristics.

TABLE 8: GIVING BY JEWISH ETHNICITY

Mizrahi Sephardi Ashkenazi Other None or unknown

Adding a set of household Jewish denominations (Reform, Orthodox, Conservative Reconstructionist, Just Jewish, and Other) to our base models for the incidence of giving and the total amounts given did not identify any significant results. That said, these distinctions did add explanatory power in some of the specialized models. For example, when examining the total amount donated to all religious causes and organizations, Conservative Jewish households are more likely to give and to donate more money compared to Reform Jewish households. That effect becomes insignificant when the Jewish Engagement Index is included in the statistical analysis. Other permutations yield a consistent pattern: There are some small, often weak, significant effects (and many insignificant effects) when including denominational differences within Jewish households. However, with inclusion of our Jewish Engagement Index, the engagement variables remain highly significant and have large size effects, while denominational differences largely disappear once engagement is included in the model.10

MARITAL STATUS AND PARTNER’S FAITH

When giving to Jewish congregations by Jewish households is analyzed, demographic patterns emerge which are consistent with those found in prior research on the general United States population. For example, Jewish people who are married or partnered have a higher donation rate to congregations than those who are single (47% versus 28%) and give 76% more ($3,610 for married Jews who donate versus $2,049 for single Jews who donate).11 The difference in donation size grows when the partner of the Jewish donor is Jewish rather than non-Jewish. When the partner is Jewish, 65% of the couples donate to congregations with a mean gift among donors of $4,408. In comparison, 25% of mixed faith couples donate to congregations of any faith and the mean gift among donors is only $1,070.

Same-faith Jewish couples give more to congregations than mixed-faith Jewish households

When controlling for socioeconomic factors, having a spouse or partner who is also Jewish is statistically significantly associated with an increased likelihood of donating and donating more to a congregation, a RIO, and a NRIO. While marital status does not affect the amounts donated in the statistical models, Jewish couples, compared to a mixed-faith Jewish household, give statistically significantly more overall to all types of charities.

CHILDREN AT HOME

Jewish households with children under 18 years old in the home have a much higher donation rate to congregations than those without (58% versus 36%). Among congregational donors, those with children at home give greater amounts: $5,837 compared to $1,993 in mean congregational giving.12 This is consistent with higher rates of synagogue membership among families with children who seek engagement in Jewish education and life-cycle rituals.13 Statistical models reveal that having children under 18 at home does not significantly affect total giving or giving to NRIOs, but is positively and statistically significantly associated with the amounts donated to congregations and RIOs.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

The measured donation rate to a congregation broadly increases with education among Jewish households, especially those with a graduate degree, of whom 56% donate to a congregation versus 41% of those with only a bachelor’s degree. However, the survey data collected for this study contrasts with previous findings, as those with a high school degree or less have a higher donation rate to congregations (33%) than those with some college (28%). This difference was not statistically significant, however. This may be an expression of Jewish donors who receive informal religious Jewish education such as Yeshiva or religious seminary. Jews with a high school degree or less also donate more ($2,343) than those with some college ($1,804) but substantially less than those with a graduate degree ($4,660). Only the difference between graduate degree holders and others was statistically significant.

INCOME AND WEALTH

As seen in Table 9, the incidence of giving at all increases as the values of the wealth categories increase, with the exception that those with wealth reported as $300,000 to $1 million have a higher measured incidence rate than both less wealthy and wealthier households. Similarly, movement up the wealth ladder relates to increases in the median values of gifts, though this is relationship is more complex for the mean gift values. When excluding households donating more than $100,000, the mean values follow the expected pattern of increasing as wealth increases, though the $300,000 to $1 million household range is larger than the $1 to $2 million range. Giving is least common among respondents who preferred not to share this information.14

12 The median donations were $750 for those with children at home versus $550 for the others.

13 The synagogue membership payment is classified as a charitable contribution.

14 The survey neglected to include “less than $100,000” as a wealth response option during data collection. It is suspected but not confirmed that many of those who responded “prefer not to answer” are in the lower wealth classifications.

TABLE 9: GIVING BY INCOME CATEGORY

TABLE 10: GIVING BY WEALTH CATEGORY

The measured effects of wealth on giving at all are statistically significant in some of our models, but not for all wealth categories—wealth for the $150,000 to $299,999 and $300,000 to $999,999 categories are significantly related to giving at all when compared to wealth of $100,000 to $149,000. The categories with greater levels of wealth do not have a large enough sample size to make a statistical determination of difference. In general, higher wealth levels are associated with larger giving overall and to giving to NRIOs, and the $150,000 to $299,000 categories also is significantly greater than giving to RIOs.

There is a similar and direct relationship with income categories, where higher levels of income are statistically significantly associated with higher giving amounts overall and to NRIOs. In addition, higher levels of income are also linked to higher levels of religious giving.

Behavior, Self-Perception, and Giving

RELIGIOSITY

In other studies of religious belief and charitable giving, one proxy for religiosity is attending religious services at least monthly (Austin, 2017). After accounting for other possible related variables, the analysis reveals that attending religious services at least once a month is statistically significantly related to increases in both the likelihood of making a gift at all and the amount of the giving in total for Jewish households.

Religious attendance is also linked to giving to religious causes, as demonstrated in detail in Table 11. Both the incidences of donating to religious causes and the amounts donated to these dramatically diminish in step with declines in the level of religious attendance. People who rarely or never attend religious service donate to congregations relatively infrequently: Only 11% of those who never attend service and 18% of those who hardly ever attend service donate to congregations. Conversely, those who attend service frequently are more likely to be donors to religion. Eighty-three percent of those who attend daily give; 74% of those who attend weekly give; and 79% of those who attend a few times per month give to congregations.

Similarly, the amounts donated to congregations by those with various levels of attendance grows with frequency of attendance. People who give to congregations but never attend or hardly ever attend religious service on average donate relatively small amounts of $1,247 and $1,085, respectively. On the other hand, those who attend daily give an average of $4,356, those who attend weekly give $3,467, and those who attend a few times per month give $7,958.

While it is logical that those who rarely or never attend give relatively little, there is some nuance in this finding. Those who attend service a few times per month give the most, on average. It is possible

that many of those who attend daily or weekly are more likely to be retired, so are giving generously for their circumstances, and that individuals who attend service a few times per month are committed to their faith, but also still in their prime earning years, so are giving more even if they are not attending daily or weekly. When controlling for these and other variables, we see no significant difference among daily, weekly, or a few times per month attendees, while those who only attend a few times a year or less are all significantly less likely to donate to congregations and to donate less to congregations.

Time and space do not permit this report to address this issue in adequate detail, but future research can address this nuanced behavioral difference. Many daily attendees are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who are hypothesized to have lower membership and lower fees for high holidays than Conservative and Reform synagogues. Part of the reason for this is the quantity of people in attendance at the Orthodox shul—individuals are not relied upon as much for financial support because there are more people to share the responsibility. Part of the Orthodox mentality is that no one should be turned away from shul because they cannot afford the membership.15

TABLE 11: GIVING BY FREQUENCY OF RELIGIOUS ATTENDANCE

Other potential measures of religiosity included in this research are self-reported measures of being religious, the role of religion in one’s daily life, the importance of being religious, and publicly identifying as religious (Table 12). These factors are statistically significantly associated with whether the person is a donor and if so, the amount they donate – this is true for overall giving, as well as congregational and RIO giving. Respondents who are “not at all religious” are significantly less likely to give at all and give less than those who self-identify as being very religious. Being spiritual, identifying religion as important to one’s daily life, and publicly identifying as religious are all statistically significant and associated with higher frequency and levels of giving, overall and to congregational and RIO giving.

Thank you to Nicole Chermak of the Ruderman Family Foundation for these details about the Orthodox Jewish community.

GIVING

Unsurprisingly, there is a strong correlation between giving and the importance of being Jewish in an individual’s life. Only 17% of those who said it was “not at all important” donate to a congregation, and the average congregational gift among those who donate is only $574. Conversely, almost twothirds (63%) of those who said it was “very important” donate to a congregation, and among those donors the mean gift is $4,894 (more than eight times greater than the “not at all important” group). The importance of being Jewish is statistically significant and associated with higher frequency and levels of giving overall, and to congregational and RIO giving.

It should also be noted that frequency of religious attendance is positively and significant ly correlated with another measure of philanthropy—volunteerism. Among Jewish households, those attending religious services monthly or more often are statistically significantly more likely to both volunteer at all and to volunteer more hours than those who attend congregational services less often, holding other variables constant.

TABLE 12: GIVING AND SELF-MEASURES OF RELIGIOSITY

Total Giving

Congregational Giving

To what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person

As described in the Data and Methodology section of this report, a Jewish Engagement Index was constructed to measure the relationships between levels of engagement with the Jewish faith and philanthropy. Based on prior research, the Index treated Orthodox Jews as a distinct category, and is described in the Data and Methodology section of this report. Orthodox Jewish patterns of identity, religious practice, and charitable giving are substantially different from those of non-Orthodox Jews. These differences may be especially apparent among the most and least engaged, for example, nonOrthodox Jews who are weekly synagogue attenders or non-engaged respondents who nevertheless identify as Orthodox. Analyzing them together could skew and obscure important findings, including but not limited to patterns in age and income across Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews.

Analysis of the survey data found that in virtually every statistical model tested, the Jewish Engagement Index was important: The higher the Jewish Engagement Index score (that is, the more engaged Jewish households are in faith activities), the more likely they are to give to both congregations and to RIOs. Households that are the most engaged also demonstrate statistically significant increases in likelihood of giving and amount given to NRIOs. Jewish households give more to each of the religious types of charities the more engaged they are in faith activities. These patterns persist even after Jewish denominations are taken into account in the statistical analysis.

The higher the Jewish Engagement Index score, the more likely a household is to give to both congregations and to RIOs

MOTIVATIONS FOR GIVING

Each survey respondent was asked a series of questions about their motivations for giving. These responses are statistically clustered into four groups for ease of analysis, as seen in Table 13 and discussed in the Data and Methodology section of this report. The motivation clusters were used to examine the different motivations and how each relates to giving among American Jews.

TABLE 13: GIVING MOTIVATION CLUSTERS

JEWISH OR COMMUNITY HERITAGE

Because of your commitment to being Jewish

As part of a regular religious or spiritual practice (e.g., tzedakah)

To live up to values instilled in you by your parents or grandparents

To help improve Jewish life and Jewish communities

Because of your desire to set an example for future generations

SOCIAL

For work or business reasons

When giving is expected within your social network

To support an organization or cause that benefitted you or someone close to you

When you are asked

To honor another (e.g., memorial gifts, celebratory gifts)

To receive a tax benefit

Because you do not believe it is good to leave too much money to your heirs

To connect with other donors and paid staff

To influence the organization you are supporting

When people you know are giving to the same organization or cause

When your employer or school expects it of you ALTRUISM

To help people after a natural disaster such as an earthquake or hurricane

When you believe that your gift can make a difference

Because you believe in the mission of the organization

In order to give back to your community

In order to help address global issues

To support the same causes/organizations year after year

VIEWPOINT

Because of your political or philosophical beliefs

To support social justice aims

When you share the views espoused by the organization you are supporting

To influence policy related to a cause you are supporting

When you want to learn more about the cause or organization

These motivational groups were analyzed controlling for household socioeconomic variables. Households that score more highly on the heritage and altruism clusters are both more likely to donate at all and to give more money in total. The relationship is seen strongly among heritage clusters in giving to RIOs and altruism clusters in giving to NRIOs. The social cluster is less likely to give at all and to give fewer dollars when they give. Social motivation clusters are also negatively related to both the likelihood and the amounts of gifts to NRIOs. The viewpoint cluster is not significantly different for any tested giving variable.

Antisemitism

The analysis conducted as a part of this study suggests that experiencing antisemitism and concern about antisemitism have a relationship with household giving patterns. For example, if somebody in the surveyed household experienced antisemitism, that event is statistically significantly related to households being more likely to make a donation at all and giving larger amounts in total and to every type of giving, including to all religious causes and organizations, to congregational giving, to RIOs, and to NRIOs. The antisemitism results are quite robust. These findings remain significant when the statistical model includes concern about antisemitism along with experiencing it while controlling for households experiencing other forms of discrimination16 and when it includes the Jewish Engagement Index. This confirms that the results are not simply based on an increased likelihood of experiencing antisemitism due to increased engagement with Jewish practices. When including a variable asking about concern toward antisemitism in the model, the effects typically escalate from not concerned, to concerned, to experienced, with each level significantly increasing both the percentage giving and the amount of dollars households donate.

The survey results reveal that giving increases among Jewish households as the degree of “[concern] about antisemitism today” increases for both total giving and giving to congregations. American Jews who are the most concerned about antisemitism are significantly more likely to give philanthropically. Eighty percent of those very concerned about antisemitism report giving, versus 67% of those who are somewhat concerned, 63% of those not too concerned and 53% of those not at all concerned. Across all giving categories tested (overall, congregational, RIO giving, NRIO giving, and Israel-focused giving), those who are very concerned about antisemitism are more likely to give and give more than those who are not.

Table 14 shows the relationship between antisemitism, other discrimination, and giving. Among donors who answered “yes” to the question, “Have you or anyone in your household experienced discrimination besides race/ ethnicity, or religion?” there are substantial increases in both average total giving ($22,837 versus $6,768) and average giving to religion ($4,177 versus $2,909). However, these differences are not statistically significant.

The biggest increases in giving are among those who indicate that they experienced antisemitism. For total giving among donors, the difference in giving is statistically significant, with a mean 10 times greater among those who experienced antisemitism compared to those who did not, at $35,425 versus $3,726. Congregational giving among donors who experienced antisemitism is also significant, with a mean more than three times that of donors who had not experienced antisemitism ($6,613 versus $2,126, respectively).17

The survey results also yield nuance about the characteristics of survey respondents who experience antisemitism. Orthodox Jews experience antisemitism at significantly higher levels than other Jewish respondents.18 Initial analysis indicates that there is a complex relationship between orthodoxy, religiosity, and experiencing antisemitism, which merits further study. Thirty percent of families with children under 18 years old at home experience antisemitism, versus 17% of those without minor children at home; however, this difference is not statistically significant when controlling for other household demographic and social characteristics. Finally, a large proportion of respondents living in the Western region of the U.S. experience antisemitism, at 28% of those surveyed. Two-thirds of this group also report being very concerned about antisemitism. Jews in other regions of the country also experienced antisemitism, at 20% of Midwestern respondents, 20% of Southern respondents, and 15% of Northeastern respondents.

TABLE 14: GIVING BY ANTISEMITISM AND DISCRIMINATION

Have you or anyone in your household experienced discrimination besides race/ ethnicity or religion?

Did you or anyone in your household experience anti-semitism?

16 Households were also asked if they experienced discrimination based on gender, age, sexual orientation, disability status, country of origin, or citizenship status.

17 A cautionary note about interpreting these findings: Staetsky (2019) found that “both perceptions and experiences of antisemitism and Jewish identity indicators vary by Jewish communal affiliation: Unaffiliated Jews have the lowest prevalence of antisemitic victimization and the most closely affiliated to the community have the highest” (p. 148). Thus, it is premature to speculate about the impact of experiencing antisemitism on charitable giving patterns; it is possible that Jewish identification and affiliation (which is associated with higher rates and amounts of giving to Jewish causes) may influence a respondent’s perception of what is or is not an experience of antisemitism, though inclusion of our Jewish Engagement Index did not eliminate the significance of this report’s findings. Crosstabulations from the Survey of Bay Area Jewish Identity (EMC Research, 2022) suggest the potential for similar interrelationships among respondents who witnessed or experienced antisemitism or who strongly or somewhat publicly identify as Jewish, and/or who indicate that being Jewish is strongly or somewhat important to them.

18 Some of this relationship may be explained by Orthodox Jews wearing items that makes them easily identifiable as Jewish and that they typically reside in known Jewish neighborhood enclaves.

Other Factors and Giving

VOLUNTEERISM

As displayed in Table 15, 29% of Jewish households surveyed report volunteering. Among those who volunteer, just over half (52%) of them volunteer for five hours per week or less. Another one-quarter of respondents (24%) volunteer between five and 10 hours per month, and the remainder (23%) volunteer more than 10 hours per month, including 6% of the total who volunteer more than 20 hours per month.

Volunteering for any amount of time is positively and significantly related to giving at all and donation amounts. Furthermore, the more a household gives, on average, the more likely the respondent is to volunteer. Thus, households do not trade off giving for volunteering or volunteering for giving, but rather give and volunteer more. Greater educational attainment, religious participation, and living in the Midwest or West (compared to the Northeast) are all positively and statistically significantly related to the rates of volunteerism. However, only religious participation is positively and statistically significantly related to volunteering more hours. The Jewish Engagement Index is also positively and statistically significantly associated with an increase in the volunteer rate, showing that greater levels of engagement are associated not only with increased giving, but other forms of altruism.

Did you volunteer your time for any type of religious or charitable organization in 2022? (This includes serving on a board and committees and donations of time performing professional services, as well as hands-on activities.)

[Among those that answered affirmatively to volunteering]

About how much time per month did you spend volunteering for a religious or charitable organization?

GIVING PATTERNS BY GENERATIONAL COHORT

When giving patterns are compared across generational cohorts, there are meaningful but complex generational differences in both the likelihood of being a donor at all and the amounts donated. These differences are most easily identified in the overall giving results. Over four-fifths of older generations

TABLE 15: VOLUNTEERISM SURVEY RESPONSES

(83% of people older than Boomer and 84% of Boomer) are donors to any charity compared to threefourths (74%) of Gen Xers and almost two-thirds (64%) of Millennial and younger

The patterns are more complex when examining giving to congregations and RIOs. In both cases, Gen X respondents report the highest incidence rates (47% and 52%, respectively), yet have the second-lowest median donation amounts of any of the four generations. When controlling for generation instead of age as a continuous variable, both Gen X and Millennial and younger are significantly less likely to give and give less overall and for NRIOs when compared to older than Boomer. Only the Millennial and younger generation was significantly less likely to give and give less for religious giving.

When treating age as a continuous variable, it was strongly significantly related to a higher likelihood of giving and giving more to congregations, RIOs, and NRIOs.

There are few statistically significant results associated with political identification. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to give and give more money to NRIOs, when controlling for other household demographics. Independents are less likely to give and give less than Democrats to RIOs.

TABLE 16: GIVING BY GENERATIONAL COHORT

Older than Boomer Boomer Gen X Millennial and younger TOTAL GIVING

V. American Jewish Giving to Israel-Focused Organizations

The following findings focus on a subset of survey questions that asked American Jewish respondents about their charitable giving to Israel-focused organizations. This report defines giving to Israel-focused organizations as charitable contributions that are directed either to nonprofit recipients in Israel or to United States-based nonprofits dedicated to Israel-focused purposes, including but not limited to Israel-focused policy matters and short-term trips and study in Israel.

Landscape of Giving to Israel-Focused Organizations

CHANGES TO GIVING OVER TIME

Twenty-five percent of American Jewish households report giving to Israel-focused organizations in 2022, with a mean value among donors of $2,467, and a median value of $400. Using a similarly constructed survey, Gerstein et al. (2013) found that 30% of American Jewish households reported giving to Israel-focused organizations in 2012, representing a potential decrease of five percentage points over the preceding decade. However, trend evidence from the survey analyzed in this report is mixed in comparison and thus not directly comparable.

Jewish households in the United States who responded to the survey reported whether they gave to Israel-focused organizations during the 10-year period spanning 2013 to 2022. Table 17 illustrates the percentage of survey respondents who gave to Israel-focused organizations at least once during the specified time period. There is a steady increase in the percentage of Jewish households who report ever giving to Israel-focused organizations, though any conclusions drawn from this are limited.19 During that timeframe, the mean number of years for a donor to give to Israel-focused organizations is more than four-and-a-half years (4.6), and the median number of years is three.

25% of American Jewish households report giving to Israel-focused organizations in 2022

19 It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this data as a source of trend data. The literature on survey research demonstrates that more prompts and more timely data yield higher recall rates (Rooney et al., 2004; Rooney et al., 2001). In the case of this survey, administered during March 2023, respondents were asked about an interval of years going back a decade, which may have been difficult for many to remember. The results could be interpreted with more confidence had the surveys been administered more closely to when the events occurred. Alternatively, if respondents were prompted with other aspects of life for each year about personal, national, and global events, participants might have had better recall. Additionally, some donors giving to Israel-focused organizations a decade ago are either no longer alive or were unable to participate in the survey, potentially introducing another form of bias. Similarly, some respondents in the current sample may have been too young to participate in prior samples, resulting in age restrictions in the past samples.

GIVING PRIORITIES TO ISRAEL-FOCUSED ORGANIZATIONS

Questions about incidence of giving to 14 types of Israel-focused organizations were included in the survey to assess the goals and targets for donations in Israel. At 40% of of those who donate, the type of organization most likely to receive donations is a United States-based organization advocating about Israel-related policy. Table 18 illustrates the five most common organizations receiving donations. The organizational group receiving the second-highest number of donations serves a combination of purposes, including missions in the United States and in Israel (31%). Other organizations receiving the most donations from the survey respondents include those focused on short-term trips or study in Israel (29%), congregations or groups that focus on religious activity or spiritual development in Israel (25%), and those that help people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities (24%).

TABLE 17: GIVING TO ISRAEL-FOCUSED ORGANIZATIONS, 2013 TO 2022

TABLE 18: FIVE MOST COMMON PURPOSES OF

Household Characteristics and Giving

JEWISH ETHNICITY AND DENOMINATION

The analysis of the survey data also included giving patterns to Israel-focused organizations among different Jewish ethnicities (Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi, “other,” and none). Those who identify as Mizrahi Jews were the most likely to give to Israel-focused organizations (48%), followed by Sephardi (38%), and Ashkenazi Jews (26%). Respondents who identify as another Jewish ethnicity or no Jewish ethnicity were least likely to give to Israel-focused organizations (22% and 12%, respectively). The “Other” ethnicities donated the largest mean amount ($3,976) of all groups, closely followed by Mizrahi Jews ($3,780).

These ethnicities among Jewish households were also tested for statistically significant differences in whether they are likely to donate to an Israel-focused organization and how large that donation was. Among the household ethnic groups, Mizrahi Jews are more likely than Ashkenazi Jews to make a donation to Israel-focused organizations (a weakly statistically significant result) and donate a larger share of their giving to Israel-focused organizations. They are statistically significantly more likely to make a larger gift when controlling for household demographics. However, among Sephardi and “Other Jews,” there are not any statistically significant differences in philanthropic giving to Israelfocused organizations compared to Ashkenazi Jews. Jewish respondents who did not identify as an ethnicity are less likely to give and give smaller gifts to Israel-focused organizations.

There is only one statistically significant relationship in the incidence of giving to Israel-focused organizations among different Jewish denominational groups. When holding constant for other variables that influence giving, Orthodox Jews give more than Reform Jews, a weakly statistically significant difference, but this did not hold true between other denominational pairs. However, when testing for differences between denominational groups and the share of their giving to Israel-focused organizations, Orthodox and Conservative denominations donate a higher percentage of their gifts to Israel-focused organizations than Reform Jews, although only the difference between Orthodox and Reform Jews is weakly statistically significant. Being “Just Jewish” or “Other” is not associated with any significant differences in the percentage of each group that donates, the amounts they donate, or the percentage of giving to Israel-focused organizations.

MARITAL STATUS AND PARTNER’S FAITH

Twenty-five percent of American Jewish households donated a mean gift of $2,467 to Israel-focused organizations in 2022. Households of married or partnered couples are more likely than single adult households to give to Israel-focused organizations (29% versus 18%); however, when socioeconomic factors are held constant in statistical models, couples are not statistically significantly different

from singles. When the gender effect is isolated from marriage or partnership, single men are both more likely to donate to Israel-focused organizations and to donate larger gifts than both couples and single women.

In the survey sample, Jews who are married to or partnered with other Jews give to Israel-focused organizations at nearly five times the rate of those with non-Jewish spouses or partners (45% versus 10%, respectively). Statistical analysis revealed that Jewish respondents whose spouse or partner is also Jewish are significantly more likely to donate to Israel-focused organizations, to give more money overall, and to give a larger share of their total donations compared to those whose spouse is not Jewish, when controlling for household socioeconomic characteristics. These results were both large and statistically significant.

CHILDREN AT HOME

Households with children under 18 years old living in the home have a higher donation incidence to Israel-focused organizations than those who do not (46% versus 19%). This is reflected in their mean donations—donor households with children at home giving a mean of $4,797 to Israel-focused organizations, compared to $762 among donor households without children under 18 at home. Controlling for other household socioeconomic factors, having children under 18 in the house is strongly related to donating to Israel-focused organizations, the amount of money donated, and the percentage of all gifts donated.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

The survey data demonstrates a gradual rise in donation incidence to Israel-focused organizations as respondent education levels increase, as those with education levels of high school or less and some college reporting a giving incidence of 20% and 21%, while those with a bachelor’s degree give at 24% and those with a graduate degree give at 32%. However, this is not neatly reflected in the dollar amounts given by donors based on education level, who on average give $7,547, $945, $1,135, and $2,878, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed that educational level has little impact on giving to Israel-focused organizations when controlling for socioeconomic household characteristics.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH

With respect to Jewish households giving to Israel-focused organizations, income plays a consistent and important role: Higher income levels are statistically significantly associated with increases in the likelihood of giving to Israel-focused organizations at all, the total dollar amounts donated, and the share of total giving to these organizations, when controlling for socioeconomic household characteristics.

However, the results suggest that Jewish household wealth is mostly a non-factor in the decisions to give at all, how much to give, and the share of total giving to Israel-focused organizations. There are no statistically significant differences among most of the wealth categories and the lowest wealth category. Perhaps surprisingly, the only statistically significant differences are between the lowest wealth category (less than $150,000) and the second lowest wealth category ($150,000 to $300,000). Those in the second lowest wealth category are statistically significantly more likely to give at all and to donate more dollars to Israel-focused organizations than the lowest wealth category.

Behavior, Self-Perception, and Giving

RELIGIOSITY

Statistical analysis of the survey data revealed that the frequency of religious attendance is positively related to the incidence of giving to Israel-focused organizations, the amounts that are donated, and the share of total giving to these organizations.

CONNECTION TO ISRAEL

Survey respondents were asked about the importance of being Jewish. Half of those who consider being Jewish very important in their lives give to Israel-focused organizations and give a higher mean amount ($2,227) than those that consider this less important. The measured donation incidence to Israel-focused organizations decreases by the degree to which a respondent feels being Jewish is important. These results are statistically significant after accounting for household socioeconomic characteristics, as reported importance of being Jewish is statistically significantly related to giving to Israel-focused organizations, the amount given, and the percent of all giving going to Israel-focused organizations. Weaker but similar patterns exist among respondents who reported the importance religion has in their daily lives.

Similarly, households that are “very attached to Israel” are significantly more likely to donate to Israelfocused organizations at all, to donate more money, and to donate a higher share of all their gifts to Israel-focused organizations in the statistical analysis. Having personally traveled to Israel was not statistically significantly related to whether they donated to Israel-focused organizations, how much they donated, or the share of their total giving going to these organizations in the statistical analysis. However, not having been to Israel was statistically significantly and negatively associated with making a gift to an Israel-focused organization, the size of the gift, and how large a share of total giving is comprised of gifts to Israel-focused organizations, holding constant for household socioeconomic

20 See footnote 15.

characteristics. Comparing those who currently have family living in Israel to those who do not, the latter category was statistically significantly and negatively related in all three statistical analyses: incidence of giving to Israel-focused organizations, amount given, and share given to these organizations.

58% of Orthodox households report giving to Israel-focused organizations

JEWISH ENGAGEMENT INDEX

To understand how the level of engagement in Jewish life is related to the incidence and type of donations that Jewish households make, the 14 Israel-related purposes to which respondents report giving are related to the Jewish Engagement Index described in the Data and Methodology section. The four levels of engagement of the Index are Orthodox, most engaged, middle engaged, and least engaged. The incidence of each group that gives to Israel-focused organizations is directly related to level of engagement. Thus, 58% of Orthodox households report giving to Israel-focused organizations, while only 5% of the least engaged households did so (Table 19).

TABLE 19: GIVING TO ISRAEL-FOCUSED ORGANIZATIONS BY LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT

Table 20 illustrates the top five purposes to which the most members from each engagement group gave, of those that donate to Israel-focused organizations.21 Beyond allocation to a United States-based organization advocating on Israel-related policy and organizations focused on short-term trips or study in Israel, the giving priorities of each group are different. An empty cell means that the given purpose was ranked below that group’s top five causes.

TABLE 20: TOP FIVE CAUSES BY JEWISH ENGAGEMENT LEVEL

An Israel-based religious congregation or group whose primary purpose is religious activity or spiritual development, such as a Yeshiva or Kollel

Not counting anything you’ve marked already, an Israeli organization that helps people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities

A U.S.-based

An organization that serves a

An organization focused on short-term trips or study in Israel

Not counting anything you’ve marked already, a health care or medical research organization in Israel

Not counting anything you’ve marked already, an Israeli organization that provides international aid, disaster relief, or promotes world peace

Not counting anything you’ve marked already, an Israeli organization that supports or promotes the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness

Not counting anything you’ve marked already, an Israeli organization that provides youth or family services

21 While this represents responses from 58% of Orthodox respondents, this is only 5% of the least engaged.

Across the board, there are two organizational types that are most likely to receive donations from American Jewish households. The first is a United States-based organization advocating on Israelrelated policy. Thirty-six percent of Orthodox, 42% of the most engaged, 39% of the middle engaged, and 33% of the least engaged Jews report giving to this this issue, which is the most common priority among the latter three groups. The second most common organization type is an organization focused on short-term trips or study in Israel. Twenty-six percent of Orthodox Jews, 36% of the most engaged, 17% of the middle engaged, and 20% of the least engaged Jews report donating to this cause.

Orthodox Jewish households have the highest percentage of prioritized giving, at 53%. This is allocated to a congregation or group that focuses on religious activity or spiritual development in Israel. It is also one of the top five most common giving priorities among both the most and the least engaged, at 24% and 15%, respectively. The second most common giving priority among Orthodox Jews is giving to an Israel-focused organization that helps people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities. Forty-seven percent of Orthodox households give to this cause, which is not among the most common priorities of the other Engagement Index groups.

Of the most engaged Jews, 38% prioritize giving to an organization that serves a combination of purposes in Israel and 25% to an Israel-focused organization that helps people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities such as Yad Sarah.

In addition to the causes already mentioned, middle engaged Jewish households prioritize giving to an organization that serves a combination of purposes in Israel (25%) and giving to a health care or medical research organization in Israel (13%), such as Shaarei Tzedek Hospital.

Finally, 19% of the least engaged households prioritize giving to an organization that supports or promotes the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness, such as a theater or museum. While among the top five priorities for this level of engagement, it does not appear among the top priorities of more engaged households.

MOTIVATIONS FOR GIVING

Each respondent was asked questions about different motivations for giving. As described in the Data and Methodology section of this report, these were clustered into four groups: Jewish and community heritage, social, altruism, and viewpoint. After controlling for household socioeconomic characteristics, households that fell in the heritage cluster are more likely to donate to Israelfocused organizations and to give a larger donation. These households give based on their commitment to their faith group and their family values. The social cluster is both more likely to give to Israel-focused organizations and to give a larger donation, although the latter result is weakly statistically significant. The social motivation cluster is negatively related to the other tested forms of giving (overall, religious, and NRIO). Households that fall in the social cluster give for transactional reasons. The other two motivational clusters are not statistically significant for either the incidence of giving, or the amounts donated to Israel-focused organizations.

Other Factors and Giving

GIVING PATTERNS BY GENERATIONAL COHORT

The giving patterns to Israel-focused organizations by four different generational cohorts were also analyzed.22 The leading age group that donates to Israel-focused organizations is Gen X (age 43 to 58 during 2022; 27%), followed closely by Millennials and younger (age 18 to 42; 25%). Twenty two percent of those older than Boomer (age 69 and older), and 17% of Boomer (age 59 to 68) donate to Israel-focused organizations. Additionally, unique among the types of giving analyzed, Gen X and Millennials and younger report the highest mean amounts given ($5,430 and $2,165, respectively). However, statistical analysis reveals that there are no statistically significant differences between each generational cohort whether they donate to Israel-focused organizations, how much they donate, or how large a share of their total giving goes to Israel-focused organizations after holding socioeconomic household characteristics constant.

Gen X donates more on average than other generations to Israel-focused organizations

The Gen X and Millennial and younger generations most highly prioritize their top three types of organizations to which they donate when donating to Israel-focused organizations. They largely give to organizations focused on short-term trips or study in Israel (38% and 39%, respectively), United States-based organizations advocating on Israel-related policy (36% and 46%, respectively), and an organization that serves a combination of purposes in Israel, such as federations (35% and 36%, respectively). However, these generational cohorts differ with respect to their fourth most common giving priority: Twenty-one percent of Gen X respondents give to a health care or medical research organization in Israel while 29% of Millennial and younger respondents give to a congregation or group that focuses on religious activity or spiritual development in Israel.

The Boomer and older than Boomer generational cohorts who give to Israel-focused organizations are most likely to give to a United States-based organization advocating on Israel-related policy (37% and 49%, respectively), followed by an organization that serves a combination of purposes in Israel such as federations (23% and 42%, respectively). Nineteen percent of Boomer respondents give to a health care or medical research organization in Israel such as Hadassah Hospital, and 16% give to an Israel-focused organization that helps people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities. 22 Because

VI. Conclusion

This report on Jewish Philanthropy aims to provide an up-to-date understanding of present-day giving and volunteering by American Jewish households. It explores multiple aspects of giving by Jewish households, encompassing their identities as Jewish people in terms of religiosity, ethnicity, and denomination, as well as their social, political, and economic alignments. This report presents a comprehensive and nuanced portrait of the philanthropic patterns of American Jewish households. Among the important findings of this report, several stand out:

Jewish households are generous. Almost three-quarters of American Jews give to any charity and those that give donate an average of $10,588. Naturally, many Jewish households donate to religious congregations (41%) and do so generously ($3,260 average donation). Even more noteworthy, twothirds of Jewish households donate to NRIOs to which the average gift of donors ($4,079) is greater than the average gift donated to congregations.

Giving to Jewish congregations is a priority among Jewish households. The largest percentage of the largest gifts given by Jewish households are given to Jewish congregations. Of the largest gifts, 44% are given to a Jewish organization, suggesting that among Jewish households, almost half of large gifts are directed toward Jewish causes.

It should be noted that most of these largest gifts are not what professional fundraisers would consider “large gifts.” Fifty-five percent of those reported are less than $500, and almost twothirds are less than $1,000. Only 4% of Jewish households gave gifts larger than $100,000 in 2022, including 1% who said that their largest gift was $1 million or more. Nevertheless, this finding serves as a reminder that the average Jewish household does indeed prioritize giving to congregations.

Experiences with or concerns about antisemitism in the United States are linked to higher levels of giving according to every measure of giving in the survey. Survey respondents that personally experienced antisemitism or had someone in their household who experienced it give more to all causes than those without these experiences. Respondents that report being very concerned about antisemitism give at higher rates (80% versus 53%) and over five times more than the average of those who are unconcerned about antisemitism ($14,438 versus $2,351). Donors who experienced antisemitism give an average of $35,425, two-and-a-half times more than donors who are very concerned and almost 10 times more than donors who have not experienced it ($3,726). Notably, this increase extends to non-religious giving as well, as donors who had experienced antisemitism give over six times as much to NRIOs than donors who had not ($12,128 versus $1,827). While at first glance it appears that those who are very concerned about or have experienced antisemitism are “voting with their checkbooks,” because of the complexity of these issues further research is needed to establish whether the connection between feelings about and experiences of antisemitism and increased giving is causal, as the difference was not explainable solely from the standard demographics controlled for in this study.

One-fourth of American Jews gave to Israel-focused organizations in 2022—many of them younger households. Notably, the results of younger generations – Generation X and Millennials (including Generation Z adults) – have both the highest incidences of giving and the highest mean amounts given to Israel-focused organizations. Another finding is that among respondents of all ages who reported ever giving to an Israel-focused organization, there was a steady increase in those who recall giving a gift during 2013 to 2022. While it is likely the overall incidence of giving these organizations decreased among American Jewish households in the last decade, there is enough complexity demonstrated by the survey result to merit further examination of this trend and the characteristics of households that gave during this time period.

There are several other interesting findings about American Jewish giving to Israel-focused organizations. One is that single men are more likely to give and to give more to Israel-focused organizations than single women or married or partnered couples. Motivations also matter among Jewish households donating to Israel-focused organizations, but they are mixed: Respondents motivated by heritage and social (transactional) factors are both more likely to give to these organizations and to donate more money than those that do not have these motivations. Notably, among all other types of giving, socially-motivated giving is found to be negatively associated with giving at all and the amount given.

IMPLICATIONS

What do these results mean for charities, fundraisers, and other donors? Jewish donors are generous: In 2022, three-quarters of Jewish households donated an average of $10,588 to religious and charitable purposes. They are prospective donors to many charities, but not equally so—two-thirds gave to NRIOs, less than half gave to RIOs, and only two-fifths gave to congregations, though the latter organizational group was most likely to receive the typical household’s largest gift. Knowing that there are many causes to which Jewish households give, all organizations must exercise care when seeking gifts from this group.

Twenty-five percent of Jewish households report giving to Israel-focused organizations in 2022. Those who report that being Jewish was of greater importance in their lives are more likely to donate to Israel-focused organizations. They are also more likely to give larger gifts and give a larger proportion of their overall giving to these organizations.

The primary focus of this report is on Jewish giving to congregations, RIOs, and NRIOs. Using the survey data collected for this report, future research will delve more deeply into philanthropic comparisons between Jewish donors and donors of different faiths. It also will examine some of the statistically significant findings in this report in a more nuanced fashion, such as better understanding the linkages between observed religious behavior and introspective religious values. Analyses such as these will provide charities and fundraisers with more tools to attract donors to give to a variety of organizations and causes.

Bibliography

Aronson, J. K., Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Boxer, M., & Brookner, M. A. (2019). A New Approach to Understanding Contemporary Jewish Engagement. Contemporary Jewry, 39(1), 91–113.

Austin, T. (2017). Giving USA Special Report on Giving to Religion. https:// givingusa.org/just-released-giving-usa-special-report-on-giving-to-religion/

Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part One: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712

Cohen, S. M., & Landres, J. S. (2014). Connected to Give: Synagogues and Movements. Jumpstart Labs. http://jumpstartlabs.org/offering/research-reports/ connected-to-give/

Dashefsky, A., & Lazerwitz, B. (2009). Charitable choices: Philanthropic decisions of donors in the American Jewish community. Lexington Books.

Dean-Olmsted, E., Bunin Benor, S., & Gerstein, J. (2014). Connected to Give: Community Circles. Jumpstart Labs. http://jumpstartlabs.org/offering/researchreports/connected-to-give/

EMC Research. (2022). Survey of Bay Area Jewish Identity: Identity, Experiences, Attitudes. Jewish Community Relations Council. https://jcrc.org/blog/bay-areajewish-identity-survey/

Fleisch, E., & Sasson, T. (2012). The New Philanthropy: American Jewish Giving to Israeli Organizations. Brandeis University Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies. https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/esploro/outputs/report/ The-New-Philanthropy-American-Jewish-Giving/9924144303801921

Gerstein, J., Cohen, S. M., & Landres, J. S. (2013). Connected to Give: Key Findings from the National Study of American Jewish Giving. Jumpstart Labs. http:// jumpstartlabs.org/offering/research-reports/connected-to-give/

Gerstein, J., & Landres, J. S. (2013). Connected to Give: Jewish Legacies. Jumpstart Labs. http://jumpstartlabs.org/offering/research-reports/connected-to-give/

Gerstein, J., Landres, J. S., & Avedon, J. (2014). Connected to Give: Risk and Relevance. Jumpstart Labs. http://jumpstartlabs.org/offering/research-reports/ connected-to-give/

Lugo, L., Cooperman, A., Smith, G. A., O’Connell, E., & Stencel, S. (2013). A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/10/01/ jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

McKitrick, M. A., Landres, J. S., Ottoni-Wilhelm, M., & Hayat, A. D. (2013). Connected to Give: Faith Communities. Jumpstart Labs. http://jumpstartlabs.org/ offering/research-reports/connected-to-give/

Pew Research Center. (2021b). 2019-2020 Survey of U.S. Jews Final Topline. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/04/ PF_05.11.21.Jewish_Survey_Topline.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2021a). Jewish Americans in 2020. Pew Research Center.

Rooney, P. M. (2010). Dispelling common beliefs about giving to religious institutions in the United States. In Religious Giving: For Love of God. Indiana University Press.

Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Schervish, P. G. (2001). A Methodological Comparison of Giving Surveys: Indiana as a Test Case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001303011

Rooney, P., Steinberg, K., & Schervish, P. G. (2004). Methodology Is Destiny: The Effect of Survey Prompts on Reported Levels of Giving and Volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 628–654. https://doi. org/10.1177/0899764004269312

Rooney, P., Wang, X., & Ottoni-Wilhelm, M. (2018). Generational succession in American giving: Donors down, dollars per donor holding steady but signs that it’s starting to slip. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 918–938. https://doi. org/10.1177/0899764018770281

Shaul Bar Nissim, H. (2018). Trends and changes in American Jewish philanthropy 2000-2015. In American Jewry and the national security of Israel (pp. 143–156).

Shaul Bar Nissim, H. (2019). New diaspora philanthropy? The philanthropy of UJAFederation of New York toward Israel. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019828048

Shaul Bar Nissim, H., & Rooney, P. (2023). American Jewish Philanthropy: Overview of Research between 2000 and 2020. Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/35672

Staetsky, L. D. (2019). Can Convenience Samples be Trusted? Lessons From the Survey of Jews in Europe, 2012. Contemporary Jewry, 39, 115–153.

Tobin, G. A., Solomon, J. R., & Karp, A. C. (2003). Mega-gifts in American Philanthropy: General & Jewish Giving Patterns Between 1995-2000. Institute for Jewish & Community Research. https://search.issuelab.org/resource/mega-gifts-inamerican-philanthropy-general-jewish-giving-patterns-between-1995-2000.html

Tobin, G. A., & Weinberg, A. (2007). A Study of Jewish Foundations. Institute for Jewish & Community Research. https://www.bjpa.org/content/upload/bjpa/jewi/ Jewish.Foundations.pdf

Wertheimer, J. (2018). Giving Jewish: How Big Funders Have Transformed American Jewish Philanthropy. Avi Chai Foundation. https://avichai.org/knowledge_base/ giving-jewish-how-big-funders-have-transformed-american-jewish-philanthropy/

Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512X649379

The Ruderman Family Foundation is an internationally recognized organization, advancing a myriad of social justice issues and modeling the practice of strategic philanthropy worldwide. The Foundation operates as a non-partisan catalyst to enact significant change in cooperation with government, private sectors, civil society, and philanthropies.

The Ruderman Family Foundation believes that inclusion and understanding of all people is essential to a fair and flourishing community and imposes these values within its leadership and funding.

LEARN MORE AT WWW.RUDERMANFOUNDATION.ORG

The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy provides a comprehensive approach to philanthropy through its academic programs and executive training courses that are designed to empower students, professionals, and volunteers to be innovators and leaders who create positive and lasting change in the world.

The first of its kind, the school offers unparalleled access to philanthropic leaders and visionaries to both students and alumni.

Now enrolling for bachelor’s, master’s, certificate, and doctoral programs, including the Professional Doctorate in Philanthropic Leadership.

LEARN MORE AT PHILANTHROPY.IUPUI.EDU.

@IUPHILANTHROPY | @RUDERMANFDN

/IULILLYFAMILYSCHOOLOFPHILANTHROPY | THE RUDERMAN FAMILY FOUNDATION

@IU.PHILANTHROPY | @RUDERMANFAMILYFOUNDATION

/IUPHILANTHROPY | RUDERMAN FAMILY FOUNDATION

/INDIANA-UNIVERSITY-LILLY-FAMILY-SCHOOL-OF-PHILANTHROPY | RUDERMAN FAMILY FOUNDATION