While the Jewish community often thinks of itself as distinct and different, when it comes to giving, the trends and challenges in Jewish philanthropy are markedly similar to those in the wider community.

And yet, for Jewish organizations, there are particular lessons that can be gleaned from the broader patterns in American charitable giving — as seen in the latest annual Giving USA report, which was released last month. 

Most significant of these is the profound shift underway as vast amounts of wealth move from the baby boomers to Gen Xers, two generations with vastly different outlooks and giving patterns, which Jewish organizations must prepare for, according to Avrum Lapin, president of the Lapin Group and a board member of the Giving Institute, which produces the report. 

Those incoming Gen X donors tend to treat Jewish issues as “one item on a menu” of many worthy causes and have less “brand loyalty” to legacy organizations, according to Lapin. A debate over how best to direct funds amid rising antisemitism is also starting to reshape the community’s funding landscape as Jewish philanthropy recalibrates after years of emergency giving.

Charitable giving in the U.S. rose again last year, continuing modest but steady growth, the report shows, with increased giving by foundations and a continued shift toward donor-advised funds. Bequests jumped nearly 20% in 2025, the third time in the last four years that bequest giving has increased by that much or more, though Lapin cautioned that the year-to-year numbers are still too volatile to be considered a trend.

As he does almost every year, Lapin spoke with eJewishPhilanthropy about the report, unpacking what last year’s numbers show, and what they still don’t, as Jewish philanthropy works through a period of unusually rapid change. Many of the trends that he identified have been brewing for years — the shift toward foundations and donor-advised funds, for instance — and yet they represent the fundamental landscape of the philanthropic field.

The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. 

Nira Dayanim: What trends in giving that revealed in the report do you think are most important for Jewish nonprofits and donors?

Avrum Lapin: Over the past 40 years — with a couple of blips and drops along the way — we’re seeing giving that mirrors GDP. The patterns you see in the general philanthropic marketplace are reflected in the Jewish community. More people are using philanthropic tools (like donor-advised funds). You see the growth in foundations over time — over a two-year period, I believe it’s about 9.5% growth in giving by foundations.

For the Jewish community, the issue isn’t giving, it’s where the giving goes. The Jewish community is an extremely philanthropic community. Over the past two to three years, we went from a peak in emergency funding to easing off after the Jewish Federations of North America emergency campaign ended. The impact on the marketplace was profound. The donors were older, and it kind of sucked the oxygen out of the community philanthropically for a time. 

The community’s giving has been working its way back over the subsequent 15 months, from the last quarter of 2024 through 2025. I don’t have numbers on this, but I’m probably right that people returned to normal giving patterns, funding organizations they may have shorted during the emergency campaign for obvious reasons, and returning to the causes that represent their particular interests. Then the war in Iran distorted things again and created a little bit of misdirection. But for the most part, giving in 2025 continued along the path of recalibration.

We’re not here to talk about 2026, but for the Jewish community, giving locally is re-emerging, and giving to Israel is finding a new balance. In a past conversation, I compared it to a jigsaw puzzle, all the pieces were thrown into the air, and they’re falling back — some into place, some not. 

There’s an undercurrent in the Jewish community — one we hear all the time — about the effectiveness of the “legacy organizations” and their approach to antisemitism, and where the community’s investment should go. Some say we have to continue funding the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, local federations, Jewish Community Relations Councils, etc., and the people doing street-level work to combat or respond to antisemitism.

Others argue this isn’t working, that legacy organizations don’t have solutions for the kind of antisemitism we’re focused on today. Instead of creating more committees, reports, analysis and research, that argument goes, we should invest in schools and local institutions. By empowering and strengthening the community’s internal capabilities, that’s the best way to combat antisemitism — training students to be better ambassadors. 

ND: One data point I found particularly striking was that bequests jumped nearly 20% last year. Do you view that as anomalous, or as part of the “great wealth transfer” pattern people have been anticipating?

AL: There is a great wealth transfer going on, and it’s not some recognizable, massive process where you see funds moving from one generational cohort to the next all at once. It happens donor by donor, family by family. Though I can tell you, on the ground, it is happening.

Does the rise and fall of bequests in a given year reflect changes in who’s making funding decisions — one generation or another? Perhaps, but a lot of times those are timing issues. You might see things spike the following year; it depends on how much money goes into any kind of testamentary or estate planning in a given year. I believe — though I may be wrong — that bequests actually went down over the two-year spread of 2024-25. But let’s talk about the intergenerational transfer, because that’s more important, and it also ties back to your earlier question about trends in giving.

As leadership and control of philanthropic decision-making passes from baby boomers to Gen Xers, understand that the post-Holocaust generation, people 75 and older, are still here and still involved in philanthropic decision-making. So you basically have three cohorts operating at once. We can talk about millennials separately — that’s a whole different topic. But the transfer between baby boomers and Gen Xers is profound, and you see this in the Jewish community as well.

The baby boomer generation — individuals currently 60 to 75 or so — gave to the Jewish community, to a large degree, the way their parents did, and they also gave to everybody else. They supported the legacy organizations that were the foundation of the Jewish community: local federations, Israel Bonds, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, Hillel and other foundational organizations.

Gen Xers are making decisions differently. First, they are not giving to the Jewish community or to Israel first. It’s a very generous generational cohort, but giving to Israel or to Jewish causes is one item on a menu, even amid the challenges of antisemitism people are facing. 

This generation has access to institutional leadership and institutional philanthropy in a way their parents’ generation didn’t — and the analysis of how this plays out will need to happen over 2025-27: Will there be a return to the patterns of the older generation, which funded the emergency campaign? Or will this cohort continue the trend it followed before the emergency — supporting local organizations in addition to the Jewish community, and making decisions based on personal interest rather than the community’s broader interests?

There is also absolutely no brand loyalty among Gen Xers. They’ll support an organization today, and if a similar organization down the street is perceived to do it better, they’ll redirect their money there. It’s loyalty to a product or an outcome rather than loyalty to the organization itself. Again, we don’t know yet where all this is going. We see some return to pre-Oct. 7 patterns, but whether it goes all the way back, I don’t know. Are Jews between 45 and 60 supporting the Jewish community? For sure. Are they returning to synagogues in many communities? Yes. But we don’t know if it’s a sustained trend yet — we’ll need more time and reflection before we can say a trend has been redirected.

ND: You mentioned how Gen X or even millennial philanthropists might engage with Jewish causes differently than their parents, as “one item on a menu.” Does the spike in bequests change your thinking on how urgently Jewish institutions need to adapt to that generational shift, or is it just too unpredictable?

AL: I mentioned the baby boomers and the Gen Xers because the Gen Xers are the ones now emerging into leadership positions. The millennial cohort is a bit of a mystery — a challenge for the Jewish community. 

The 20-somethings and 30-somethings have been profoundly affected by what’s going on in Israel, in either direction, and they approach philanthropy differently. Setting the specific issues aside, the notion of social movements — being part of something that creates social change — is very much part of the millennial generation. That’s thematically related to, but not quite the same as, what Jewish organizations do: creating change and making a difference in people’s lives. But the millennial generation is caught up in the connectivity between volunteerism, social movements and philanthropy.

The overlay in the Jewish community: First, there’s the push-pull of what’s happening in Israel. I can tell you my own kids, both in their 30s, believe in and support Israel, but they’re uncomfortable with what’s going on, and they don’t talk about it with their friends. That’s not the situation we want to be in. 

Expanding outward, on some level, this generation isn’t going to be reached by legacy organizations — they’re not going to join a young-leadership program at the local federation. But they will engage with something impactful in their community that involves them and gives them context for being among other Jews their age with similar interests. 

So the dichotomy between the legacy approach and the community-building approach really comes into focus with the 30-something, millennial cohort, because it matters whether they’ll be as engaged in Jewish communal and philanthropic work as their parents, who are now in their 50s.

If the intergenerational transfer — however unorganized — is happening, whether it’s institutions approaching sunsetting foundations or approaching individuals in their orbit who are at that age and stage of life about testamentary giving [something now, something later], I’d say it’s imperative that organizations engage donors who are now 60 and up. 

If you’re dealing with someone who is 80, they’ve probably already made their decisions — they can adjust them, but they’ve largely decided. You want to approach people in their 50s and 60s who are thinking about wills, with kids still around the house — their estate planning looks much different than it will once their kids are grown and building their own families.

ND: You mentioned that giving to foundations has decreased significantly, but giving by foundations has increased. What do you attribute the increase in giving by foundations to — spend-downs, or something else?

AL: There are some notable foundations — the Russell Berrie Foundation a couple of years ago, the Marcus Foundation — Bernie Marcus, may he rest in peace — and other large players, including Michael Steinhardt’s, with all the issues that come along with that — that are spending down. Others are doing the same. 

Is that part of it? Maybe in a small way, but not significantly. There are always institutional funders that do that. What we’re seeing — and we’ll have to see if it becomes a trend — I can’t attribute the increase to any one thing, because in every three- to five-year cycle, there are foundations that announce they’re sunsetting, so it can’t be attributed to that alone.

Forget about the $617 billion given in total — that doesn’t affect bequests. The 20-some percent is a timing issue. Next year it could be 16%, the year after 30% — it depends on how much goes into deferred giving. But it could have some connection to the transfer of wealth and the aging of the baby boomers, who range from the low 60s — people still working — to those 15 to 20 years older, who are retired and live differently financially. 

A lot of the bequests of the post-Holocaust generation are coming into play, so I’d say there will be a steady stream. I can’t tell you there will be sustained growth at 20-some percent — that’s not a number you can predict — but it will continue.

ND: With the top-line number up last year, even with federal cuts to nonprofits pulling things the other way — do you see rising need alongside rising philanthropic giving? Is that the same picture you’re seeing in the Jewish philanthropic sector?

AL: The top three classes of recipients are still religion, even though it’s a shadow of what it was, and though it has increased. 

I think the increases are more pronounced in the Jewish community, so that probably still holds the top spot. Education and human services tend to compete for second and third, depending on the year. After COVID-19, human services were much higher; I believe this [past] year, human services were still No. 2, followed by education. Education falling from the No. 2 spot is probably, as we discussed, a result of post-COVID changes and the federal budget cuts that began in early 2025.

In the Jewish community, I think you’re seeing a reflection of that. The particulars may be a little different, but not by much — the general trends and challenges are pretty much the same, layered with the uniquely Jewish, Israel-related issues we discussed, and the reentry into something more predictable historically. We don’t yet know where things will settle, but we’re seeing some movement back. Then again, how did the war in Iran this year affect giving? We don’t yet know. We’ll have to see — the Jewish people could use a little peace and quiet, which would give us an opportunity to get clearer numbers on this as well.

ND: With all that in mind, what do you think is most important for Jewish nonprofits and donors to be aware of about last year’s trends in giving?

AL: The good news is that there were no radical changes in giving patterns. Certain things were accentuated: Giving by individuals increased, but incrementally — it’s about 60-some percent now, versus 80-some percent 20 years ago. But 20 years ago, we didn’t have as high a share of giving through foundations, and there were essentially no donor-advised funds, so individual giving accounted for a higher share. You almost have to combine individuals, donor-advised funds and family foundations and work it out from there. 

The big picture is that patterns and trends of giving haven’t changed radically nationally. Within the Jewish community, things are still evolving and unclear, and we can’t make assumptions.

For the Israel-based organizations we work with, we’re constantly telling them the expectations of five years ago aren’t the expectations of today. You have to build relationships, make connections and get your message out — it’s not a matter of showing up and going home with money. 

On the domestic side, the challenge of antisemitism and the community’s feeling of being besieged and hemmed in — without the sense of ownership of the American experience they might have felt 10 years ago — who would have imagined, 10 years ago, what we’re dealing with now in terms of antisemitism? And yet we’re at a stage where these things are becoming normalized.

We’ll have to see how this internal conversation, between investing in the community, schools and synagogues versus investing in the broader communal structure, plays out. We’re beginning to see some movement — not so much in 2025, because of the lingering effects of the emergency campaign and the community still emerging from it, but in 2026, it’s definitely become an issue to contend with.