World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות

/ מגמות חדשות בתחום הפילנטרופיה והשירות הסוציאלי בקרב יהדות אמריקה NEW TRENDS IN AMERICAN JEWISH PHILANTHROPY AND SOCIAL SERVICESAuthor(s): C. Bezalel Sherman and שרמן ב'Source: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעיVolume II, DIVISION II: JEWISH HISTORY IN THE MISHNAH AND TALMUD ,היהדות, כרך הPERIOD, IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND MODERN TIMES; THE JEWISH LABOUR MOVEMENT;CONTEMPORARY JEWISH HISTORY; THE HOLOCAUST / כרך ב, חטיבה ב: תולדות עם ישראלבתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, בימי הביניים ובעת החדשה; תולדות תנועת העבודה היהודית; יהדותזמננו; השואה... תשכ"ט / 196Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23515517 .

Accessed: 20/06/2014 22:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Union of Jewish Studies / האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies /דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEW TRENDS IN AMERICAN JEWISH PHILANTHROPY AND

SOCIAL SERVICES

Bezalel Sherman

New York

The part philanthropy played in the development of the American Jewish community has been second only to that performed by the syna

gogue — in some cases even transcending it.

Philanthropy has been broadly conceived by the Jewish benevolent

agencies. They have rarely regarded public aid merely in terms of provid ing bread to the hungry and shelter to the homeless. As early as 1807, a Jewish orphanage in Charleston, S. C. included among its tasks

assistance in the development of the artistic potentialities of its wards.

The Jewish charity institutions have as a rule been in advance of their

non-Jewish counterparts, introducing concepts, functions and methods

which have subsequently been accepted by the general community and

have greatly influenced public and government welfare programmes. More often than not, Jewish philanthropic agencies, in addition to

carrying out purely benevolent functions, also sought to create self

improvement opportunities for the persons appealing for help. From

the beginning, the line dividing charity from social service was a narrow

one in Jewish benevolence; in recent years the line has been all but

obliterated.

The Jewish philanthropic agencies, as most Jewish community services, were not built according to plan; they have evolved under the

pressure of emergency situations. Many were improvised to meet unex

pected needs and were regarded by their founders as temporary setups.

Contrary to expectations, however, these setups were soon transformed

into permanent institutions, not infrequently surviving the events

which brought them into being. By the late nineteenth century there was

established a network of Jewish hospitals, orphanages, homes for the

aged, free loan associations, immigrant aid societies, and other benevolent

institutions which extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from

Canada to Mexico. They were for the most part organized and operated without regard to each other, reflecting the stratification of the Jewish

population and taking on the particular image of the groups sponsoring them. However, under the impact of the changes American processes

155

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156 C. BEZALEL SHERMAN

have wrought in Jewish life, the barriers separating the different agencies and their founders gradually broke down and gave way to overall

community undertakings. Some of the internal and external factors contributing to the trans

formation of parochial institutions into community agencies made

themselves felt as early as 1860, when the Hebrew Benevolent Society, founded by New York Sephardim in 1822, amalgamated with the German

Hebrew Benevolent Society which was organized in 1844. If the earlier

separate existence of the two bodies was originally the result of the socio

economic superiority of the Sephardim, their subsequent merger attested

the material and communal progress of the German Jews. The mobility

marking this process established a pattern which was to shape future

relationships between German Jews and Jews of East European back

ground. Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe at first resorted to the

welfare agencies organized by the earlier arrivals from Western Europe; but religious, cultural and social considerations soon moved them to

build agencies of their own — in many a case paralleling those already in existence. The trend toward the unification of philanthoropy was thus

interrupted — but not for long. A desire on the part of the larger donors, the backbone in all fund raising, to do away with the annoying multipli

city of campaigns on one hand, and the rising economic status of the East European sector on the other hand created a basis for consolidation in philanthropic endeavour. This gave rise to the federation movement

which, getting off to an organized start in Boston in 1895, gathered momentum during the early twentieth century. By the 1920s there was a

federation in practically every sizeable Jewish community in the country. It was the function of the federation to provide for the budgets — in toto or in part — of local welfare institutions out of the proceeds of one

general campaign and to exercise some supervision over their fiscal

policies without impinging on their ideological organizational autonomy. The welfare funds were an extention of the federations and picked

up where the latter left off. The welfare funds, overwhelmingly the

product of the enormous relief responsibilities the Nazi period placed upon the shoulders of American Jewry, raised funds to support overseas causes and American Jewish institutions functioning on a countrywide scale.

In time, practically all federations and welfare funds combined their

campaigns and, in most cases, also their administrative bodies. Out of this combination there have emerged local central agencies which were

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 157

no longer content with merely acting as fund raising and fund distribut

ing organs, but have increasingly assumed regulating and evaluating functions in relation to the causes they were supporting. By also sponsor

ing and financing the community relations councils in their respective localities the federations have become widely-based centres of community action and framers of Jewish public policy. They are the common meeting

ground of all elements and groups comprising organized American

Jewry. From instruments for collecting larger sums of money at less

expense, they have evolved as centres of Jewish community consolidation

and strongholds of Jewish group continuity. They are the nearest thing to the traditional kehilla to be found in the United States.

Although widely based in their localities and representing a cross-sec

tion of Jewish leadership they are nevertheless far from being truly democratic bodies. Since fund raising is the axis about which they revolve and the source of their power, they must of necessity place the

greatest emphasis on appealing to the large contributors. A very small

percentage of donors account for 80 per cent of the sums raised by the

federations, whereas the overwhelming proportion of donors contribute

only 20 per cent of the amounts collected. Contributions of $500 and

over account for 76 per cent of the moneys raised by the New York

Federation of Jewish Philanthropies. This being the case, the big giver becomes the hub of federation cam

paigns. His views and wishes are given primary consideration by the

professional directors of the campaigns and his pet projects or causes

receive allocations in excess of their value to the overall requirements of

the community. It should be pointed out, however, that rarely does the big

giver exercise his power in a capricious or dictatorial manner. More

often than not, he is content to leave decisions as to appropriations to

the allocations committees and boards of directors of the federations, which as a rule are composed of active campaign workers who them

selves are not necessarily the largest contributors. The federations have

thus developed a new type of voluntary K'lal tuers — leaders who do

not owe loyalty to any one institution or cause but are concerned with

the alfairs of the community as a whole. The broad representativeness of the new leadership enables it to create a public opinion around the

campaigns, which even the biggest giver cannot ignore. This points up a very important problem which is imbedded in the

very heart of the federations. Made up of a diversity of groups, they can

function smoothly and effectively only if they succeed in establishing a

consensus on the principle of organizational give-and-take. To maintain

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158 C. BEZALEL SHERMAN

the consensus, they must eliminate, or at least hold down to the barest

minimum, divisions based on differences of social or national philosophy, thus inducing a levelling ideological process in which campaign considera

tions frequently obscure the causes for which funds are raised.

This built-in characteristic of the federation assumes particular per tinence at the present time when the whole field of voluntary philanthropy is undergoing a veritable revolution. Economic progress has reduced

the number of Jews requiring individual aid; and the growing welfare

programmes of the government have deeply affected the social services

and fiscal policies of all private philanthropic agencies. As a result,

many institutions have outlived their former usefulness, and others

have been unable to function on the basis of their original objectives. The altered situation confronts the philanthropic agencies with the

problem of finding a new rationale for many of their activities. Some are

veering away from merely providing for the poor, towards servicing the entire community, including those who are able to pay for the aid

they receive. Others are abandoning the purposes they had originally set for themselves and branching out into new areas. Still others, while

retaining their Jewish sponsorship, turn non-sectarian in their operations.

They all face a future that is fraught with uncertainty. The Negro revolution, bringing in its wake social unrest and accele

rated residential mobility, profoundly affecting American Jewry sociolo

gically and psychologically, has had its strongest effect on the Jewish

philanthropic institutions, confronting many of them with the dilemma of either liquidating themselves or staying open for the purpose of

serving a non-Jewish clientele. Enjoying an advanced status as part of the white middle classes, Jews are facing the agonizing question as to whether as an American ethnic community, they bear a special responsibi lity for the welfare of the disadvantaged groups over and above their

general responsibility as individual American citizens of the United

States. This is not a moral question only; it is also a question of self interest. On the large cities, Jews increasingly find themselves living amidst a Christian majority which is made up of a number disadvantaged ethnic minorities. In the City of New York Puerto Ricans represent a

growing proportion of the Catholic population; and the blacks are

already more than half of the Protestant population. In relation to these

groups, the Jews are an advantaged class, part of the white 'establish

ment,1 and especially vulnerable to social and racial demagogy. It is therefore understandable why there is a rising demand inside and outside the Jewish community that Jewish philanthropic institutions be maintain

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 159

ed for the benefit of the disadvantaged elements of all ethnic groups. This demand in part comes in answer to the question of why agencies and services which can no longer function on the basis of their original aims should be kept up.

As for the doubts raised regarding the raison d'etre of Jewish agencies

operating in welfare areas into which the government pours in more and

more state funds, it is argued that voluntary participation in public welfare is the very foundation of American democracy. It is neither

possible nor advisable for the state to monopolize the field. To do so, it is contended, is to place a bureaucracy in control of human relations

and societal attitudes. There are also practical reasons for continuing

voluntary philanthropic operations; the argument runs: Jews have to

make their contribution to the welfare of the country as a whole not

only as individuals but also as a group; and the channel for the flow of

this contribution are the Jewish community agencies whose activities

must extend to the larger American community. From this view there is

only a small step to the non-sectarian philosophy which is increasingly

influencing organized Jewish philanthropy. The changes the Jewish social services are undergoing involve both

content and form. Family agencies which formerly operated as relief

institutions, aiding needy Jews with cash donations, free loans, job

placement and other forms of charity are today mainly engaged in

counselling activities relating to marital problems, homemaking, family

relations, age adjustments, parent and children accommodations, etc.

The people served, more often than not coming from lower-middle-class

and middle-middle-class environments, pay for the services they receive

in accordance with their financial capacities. While the number of

indigent Jews requiring direct help is decreasing, a 'new poor' is arising,

according to some leaders of philanthropic agencies. An income of

between eight and twelve thousand dollars a year may be adequate to

keep an average family going moderately well under normal conditions; it is not enough however, to meet contingencies such as protracted illness.

Nor is it sufficient to provide a good education for the youngsters of

the family. That this 'new poor' has a claim on the community which

voluntary philanthropy dares not ignore is a concept making considerable

headway among Jewish social services.

Not only are the Jewish philanthropic agencies advocating greater

participation on the part of government in the war on poverty, but

federations are increasingly initiating or cooperating directly in voluntary

action aiming at the mitigation of the urban crisis now gripping American

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160 C. BEZALEL SHERMAN

cities. The 'City of Life' which the New York Federation of Jewish

Philanthropies is planning to develop over a period of ten years, and

for which it is conducting a campaign to raise 250 million dollars, will

contain institutions that will serve all groups in American society. A

growing number of Jewish agencies are setting up pilot projects to help non-Jewish poor. During 1968 many federations — among them those of

Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Buffalo and

Milwaukee — made direct appropriations to Negro agencies. There is

no questions but what this ushers in a new policy which will be pursued

throughout the country as part of the sustaining programmes of the

federations. It should be remembered in this connection that Jews are

among the most generous givers to all interreligious and interracial

causes.

There is no evidence that the projects aiding the disadvantaged non

Jewish groups must of necessity be implemented at the expense of the

Jewish causes. While there has been an increase in allocations to local

Jewish agencies, the sums allotted to Israel and overseas Jewish causes

were in 1968 and 1969 maintained at the unprecedented level reached in

1967 under the impact of the Six Day War. It would therefore appear that, in philanthropy and the social services, loyalties to local causes reinforce

loyalty to overseas causes and vice versa. It is difficult to determine

whether the Jews are motivated in supporting non-Jewish causes, by the Jewish ethic or by an instinct of self preservation

— probably by both.

As to whether they will be able to divert funds to non-Jewish groups and still continue to support their domestic services as well as Israel and

Jewish overseas causes at the present standing, only time will tell.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:01:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions