Article Library / Annual Assessment

2018 Annual Assessment

1 (6/11/18 ejewish philanthropy, by Dhana Sabanathan).
2 Wertheimer, Jack (2018). “Giving Jewish: How Big Funders Have Transformed American Jewish Philanthropy”, March, Avi Chai Foundation. (http://avichai.org/knowledge_base/giving-jewish-how-big-funders-have-transformed-american-jewish-philanthropy/ )
3 Currently we can rely only on secondary rather than primary information on the latter as may be seen in the discussion in the second part of this chapter.
4 (Jeff Solomon, President of the Andrew and Charles Bronfman philanthropies, as quoted in ”26 Billion Bucks”, Josh Nathan Kzis, April 2, 2014)
5 See, for example, “How I built my Jewish charity data base,” by Josh Nathan-Kazis in The Forward, 24 March 2014. The Nathan-Kazis data were also a primary source for Wertheimer (2018).
6 The sums are calculated according to the following calculation: The Israeli government invested in 2017 about 100 million NIS in the Joint Initiative of the Government of Israel and Jewish People in the Diaspora. (G.O.I Resolution no. 1660 June 1, 2014 and revised by Resolution no. 95 passed June 19, 2015) which is about a third of the entire projects budget for one year. About 100 million NIS is invested per year in Masa (Budget Proposal 2017/18), Birthright Israel is also budgeted at 150 million NIS per year (GOI Resolutions 2050 and 825), About 60 million NIS is invested in Nativ (The Liaison Bureau), a government supported unit which is active among Jews in the former Soviet Union in order to encourage their ties to Judaism, Zionism and Israel (GOI Budget). Upon this one should add smaller projects such as the Morasha program which was budgeted at 10 million NIS per year (GOI resolution 2980, August 2018).
7 Financial flows from members of the Diaspora to Israel may take many forms including direct investment, bond purchases, deliveries in kind (e.g. weapons and ammunition during the War of Independence or gift delivery of ambulances and medical supplies,) private remittances and philanthropic giving to Israeli institutions. We will focus primarily on the last of these.
8 Twenty-five of the 27 NGOs that are subject to the NGO Law’s provisions are viewed as being primarily on the left of Israel’s political spectrum.
9 The non-profits cover culture, sports, and recreation; education and research; health; social services; environmental, development, and workers’ organizations; synagogues, mosques, churches, yeshivas for adults; advocacy organizations; philanthropic and volunteer organizations (Brenner and Hazan, op. cit.)
10 Such institutions are also responsible in part for funding non-profits of various types so the actual share of external funds making up the budget of such organizations is actually greater than the reported 8.3 percent (Brenner and Hazan, op. cit.)
11 JPPI calculation based on CBS data found in Brenner, Nava and Osnat Hazan (2017). “Philanthropy of Israelis 2012–2015”, Central Bureau of Statistics [Israel] 353/2017, 30 November. This must be viewed as a conservative estimate because it is largely based on funds moving through official channels, particularly cash donations.
12 There is a discrepancy between these figures and those reported in the regular CBS series on current account transfers from the rest of the world to Israel (“Table 2.A.46. Current Transfers, 1980-2015”). Those show only $1.6 billion of transfers to non-profit organization. But these figures come from the Bank of Israel and may only represent transfers to Israeli non-profits from which donors may receive tax credits. The data in Brenner and Hazan, however, are based upon surveys and so will not only include organizations which may not offer tax credits but could include transfers of several types including estate planning receipts, etc. We presume these data to be more comprehensive than those reported in the regular tables from the CBS statistical yearbook.
13 Fleisch and Sasson, op.cit., p. 3.
14 Fleisch, Eric and Theodore Sasson (2012). “The New Philanthropy: American Jewish Giving to Israeli Institutions”, Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, April.
15 We began with the list of institutions identified by Fleisch and Sasson and sought to select representative samples from each of the major areas of giving: education, health, etc. The actual selection stemmed from a desire to look across the political spectrum as well, but the final selection of institutions to include in the table was largely driven by opportunity in finding the necessary data.
16 See Brenner and Hazan (2017) for a detailed treatment of Israeli domestic philanthropy.

Previous
Next