A UConn sociology professor who has studied philanthropy among the Jewish community says that what Jews mean by the word ‘charity’ is not quite the same as what most non-Jews mean when using the word to describe their patterns of giving.
In a recent book, Arnold Dashefsky, the Doris and Simon Konover Chair of Judaic Studies, and co-author Bernard Lazerwitz explore what motivates individuals in the American Jewish community to make charitable gifts.
The book, Charitable Choices – Philanthropic Decisions of Donors in the American Jewish Community (Lexington Books, 2009), also discusses the challenges facing fundraisers such as those affiliated with the Jewish Federations of North America, an organization that represents more than 150 Jewish Federations, including about 400 smaller ‘network communities’ that raise and distribute more than $3 billion annually.
The authors say that, as in other communities, the impetus for charitable giving often resides in a person’s affinity for a particular group or organization. However, the concept of ‘charity’ among Jews is linked to the Hebrew concept of ‘Tzedakah,’ which is central to Judaism. While the English word suggests acts of benevolence and generosity, the word Tzedakah is derived from the Hebrew root Tzadei-Dalet-Qof, meaning righteousness, justice, or fairness.
“Giving to the less fortunate is an obligation in Judaism,” says Dashefsky, “even by those who have little to share. One is obligated to undertake actions that produce a just society, and carrying out charitable choices, whether by doing certain things in an active way, or by making contributions, is regarded as important.”
Dashefsky, who serves as director of UConn’s Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life, and as director of the Berman Institute–North American Jewish Data Bank, says the idea for the book arose from a policy study that looked at individuals in the Jewish community who were viewed as not giving to communal enterprises. The goal of the study was to try to understand the incentives and barriers to giving, in that context.
The original empirical research looked at 72 people who fell roughly into three groups. One third were considered ‘good givers’ and were giving relatively generous gifts to the organized Jewish community. Another third were not giving and were not to any great extent involved in the Jewish community. The final third were members of synagogues but did not participate in any sort of organized communal funding. They might be giving to their synagogues or to an organization, but not specifically to the Jewish fund collectively known as The Jewish Federation.
When gathering data for their book, the authors used the information that had been gathered for the policy study, but expanded their research to include about 25 senior-level individuals in various local Jewish Federations. These individuals represented communities totaling 75 percent of the American Jewish population. In addition, data derived from several large scale surveys of the American Jewish community – the National Jewish Population Survey – archived at the databank at UConn were included.
“We found that more or less what had been reported in our original research was confirmed by the directors of the various local Federations,” Dashefsky says. “This gave me confidence that the combination of qualitative interviews with informants and professional fund-raising directors, and the quantitative studies of the U.S. Jewish community were consistent with each other.”
Dashefsky says there were a couple of surprises, however. “Some of the people we interviewed were very marginal to the Jewish community. They still had some sort of Jewish identity, but they just hadn’t found a way to express it. Still they were doing things in their life that reflected a concern for charity and righteous actions – they just didn’t connect it with the Jewish community.
“On the other hand, there were some individuals who were considered ‘good givers’ in the context of being active members of their synagogues and giving generously to the Jewish Federation. Yet, they had rather negative comments about how the how the federation was organized. It was interesting that the marginal people and the people highly integrated into the Jewish community both yielded some surprising answers.”
Dashefsky says the study can be related to the debate over health care reform.
“We saw a great ideological divide in this country, where Republicans believed – as did Thomas Jefferson, a Democrat – that the government that governs best is the government that governs least. These people vehemently resisted President Obama’s initiative because they thought the U.S. government was getting too involved in health care.
“Historically, Democrats in the 20th and 21st centuries have argued that more government intervention assures a better and fairer outcome. In a way, our book relates to this ideological divide because what’s happened in the last generation or so is that the government has more and more wanted to deflect or devolve responsibilities that it hitherto assumed for charity through welfare and other reforms. The question becomes, can the private sector really absorb all of this responsibility?
“For this reason, understanding what motivates people to act in a charitable fashion, and figuring out ways to reinforce their feelings of community, becomes increasingly important.”
Dashefsky is currently at work on two additional books. One is a second edition of a book originally published in 1992, Americans Abroad (Springer) that includes a new introduction with a new co-author, Karen Woodward-Lafield. This book examines current trends in U.S. emigration. The second is Jewish Options (Rowman & Littlefield) with J. Alan Winter, which highlights the 21st century choices of American Jews.
