In the nearly two years since the Oct. 7 terror attacks, much has been discussed — including in these pages — about “The Surge” in Jewish engagement that has emerged in their wake and in response to the ensuing rise in global antisemitism. But alongside the increase in general participation in Jewish communal life, there has also been a jump in giving to Jewish causes. 

Last year, the CCS Fundraising firm released a study examining this post-Oct. 7 Jewish giving, which identified an initial increase in both gifts from existing donors and a significant increase in the number of new donors. The study, based on a survey of 73 Jewish organizations across the United States, also found that most of those donations went to causes related to Israel and antisemitism. 

To check in on these trends, eJewishPhilanthropy spoke recently with Douglas London, managing director of CCS Fundraising. 

The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Judah Ari Gross: We haven’t spoken in a while, since you folks at CCS came out with the study on Jewish giving post-Oct. 7, which is a data set that I refer back to all the time. So, first, give me a broad picture: What are some of the trends that you all have been seeing since then? 

Doug London: There was a lot of “messy” data. After Oct. 7, organizations, especially federations — think of the [nearly] $900 million that the federations raised for their emergency campaign — for many of them, in some local federations, more than half [saw contributions from] new donors, and it’s just messy. 

So, how do we aggregate it? How do we analyze it? How do we “clean” the data? How do we utilize it? Recognizing that not all of those new donors are going to be sustainable donors, but how do we engage those donors? So that “messy” donor data, how does that necessarily translate to stewardship?

Also, I think, staff are burnt out and turnover is high. We’re seeing that with a lot of the organizations that we partner with. Like Jewish day school heads of school. They made it through COVID, they made it through Oct. 7, and they’re like, “I don’t want to do that anymore.” I’m burnt out, I’m tired. And so a lot of the big search firms are keeping busy because those big directors of development and heads of school positions, those top positions, are really turning over.

Obviously, federal funding cuts remain [an issue]. They are non-sector specific, but for the Jewish community, organizations that have a human service or social service component are really going to be taking a hit. And philanthropy can be a part of that, but not the only part of it.

Artificial intelligence is something that we’re thinking and talking a lot about. How to both sharpen engagement with donors, how to support operations and how to be predictive in how we work with and analyze donors. 

We’re working with a client right now who is using an AI tool to help standardize and automate how they steward donors below $5,000. So in their system, this AI tool that we’ve created with them will trigger for the gift officer, “This is when you should reach out to them.” So kind of automating that process to make it a little bit more turnkey.

We also found… that only 25% of organizations are actively soliciting donor-advised fund gifts, which I think is interesting. 

JAG: Why would that be the case? As somebody who’s not in the fundraising world, but obviously who is tracking things in it, it seems like an obvious thing to do. There was just an article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which we included in our newsletter, about a nonprofit that saw a major jump in donations after it noted that they could be made through donor-advised funds in its campaign materials. It seems obvious. 

DL: Totally. But most organizations are uncomfortable with how to talk about it.

JAG: Where’s the discomfort coming from? 

DL: There’s a couple things. One, the benefit is to the donor when they donate the gift. Except it’s not really, right? I think the perception is that it is.

Like, my donor-advised fund is with Jewish National Fund. So when I give to the Jewish National Fund, they receive the donation for it. But I can also fulfill a gift to another organization that receives the money. I still get the recognition, but not the tax credit. So I think there’s a lack of education. It’s so new for so many, and the rise has been so fast since 2020 that I think the education on what it is and what it isn’t hasn’t caught up to each other.

JAG: You mean that normally the pitch to prospective donors is around tax benefits, so since that’s not the case here, fundraisers may not know how to speak about it? 

DL: Yeah, for a lot of donors that are giving $100 or $500, they’re itemizing [donations] versus the people that are giving the largest gifts, who are not itemizing their taxes. So the advantages are different. And it’s the same thing with planned giving or with corporate partnerships, just diversifying your portfolio and talking more about these things, even if organizations just add a section on planned giving it to their website, they’ll see an uptick in planned gifts because even if you’re passively talking about it, it’s more than most organizations do.

So when we’re partnering with an organization and we’re talking to them about planned giving, we’ll say that the first step is put it on your website and then look at donors who have given to you five or 10 years in a row. Cultivate those people. Jewish donors, Jewish philanthropists believe in kind of the m’dor l’dor (“from generation to generation”) of it all. They see planned giving as an opportunity to sustain the organization for the future, but also want to make sure that they’re giving to their family too. So there’s an education piece about all of that as well.

JAG: I’ve started thinking more about the generational shifts that are happening in general and in the Jewish philanthropic world specifically, with less giving to Jewish causes and religious causes in general. Are you seeing any of your clients pivoting as a result of these changes? Are they trying to fight the trend and attract younger donors or are they doubling down on their older, core donors? 

DL: I think it’s, “yes and.” A lot of times, organizations that ask for a planned gift will ask the donor to commit to giving annually through their life. And they will also encourage meeting with their family, the next generation, and ask for that connection in those meetings so that the relationship is institutionalized not just in one person, but in the next generation.

How do we do that in terms of asking people to join boards? Do you ask their children, the next generation, to join boards? Because in our most recent poll survey, we heard that about a quarter of nonprofit boards cite board involvement in fundraising as a top challenge, where there’s a lack of clarity around the fundraising strategy and the expectations.

This way the next generation understands more about what is expected of boards, and they’re more comfortable in participating in fundraising and being a part of those conversations. 

JAG: I was just speaking with someone about nonprofit boards and how they are used for fundraising, but then you have people in lay leadership roles who are there to create a connection, but since they are new, they are not necessarily fully bought in to the values and goals of the organization. Do you see those dynamics with your partners? 

DL: We’re seeing organizations be more thoughtful in what their board composition is. So some organizations are making smaller boards. They’re having the right people instead of the numbers. 

For the main boards, are they fiduciarily responsible, do they have a fundraising component? And then do we build an advisory board that advises on other pieces?

So we’re seeing more and more organizations really think about the board, what its role is and what it isn’t.

JAG: There was an election since we last spoke as well, with some major policy shifts affecting nonprofits and philanthropy. How has that factored into your work with your partners? 

DL: Thinking about philanthropy pre- and post-election, when the political climate is challenging. We see that philanthropy is resilient. Many organizations with the economic uncertainty, with inflation, are focusing on the mid-level and the recurring donors, the people who have kind of a higher lifetime value with higher retention rates.

How do we cultivate those donors in a more strategic way? Who are our rainy day people who are going to be with us come hell or high water? We’re seeing a lot of organizations really focusing on that because that is the need.

JAG: When we last spoke after the report on Jewish giving came out, one of the numbers that stood out was that 37% of Jewish groups had new donors post-Oct. 7, and the question was about how many of those will be retained. Do you have any numbers or indicators on that, even anecdotally? 

DL: What we’ve seen is that about 30% of new donors are engaged on a year-over-year basis. That’s not just from Jewish organizations or Jewish-affiliated organizations, but looking at all organizations that have acquired new donors. And that holds true with many of the federations that we’re talking to and working with, that about 30-35% of the new donors that they brought in are sticking around.

JAG: Can you give that a grade? Is that a good number? A low number? 

DL: I think that actually is a good number. 

JAG: Again, even anecdotally, are there any indications of who those donors are? Are they larger donors, smaller donors? Younger, older? 

DL: Larger. I think that the people who are staying engaged are the people whom the organizations are focusing on, the ones with wealth. And [in terms of ages,] we know that the largest aggregation of people who have $1 million in net assets are above 40, with a significant amount of them being above 55. So take that for what it’s worth.

JAG: Going back to the issue of generational giving post-Oct. 7, are organizations able to focus on the issue of long-term health and building up relationships with younger donors or is the focus in this moment of crisis more on getting support now? 

DL: I wish there were a science to it. What I can tell you is that we’re encouraging organizations to focus on planned giving. A lot of people say, “Let’s talk about planned giving when you’re 70.” 

But the average person creates their will between 40 and 45, so families might put [an organization] in their will at 40 and then accumulate wealth and have kids. You might not determine how much you’re going to give until you’re 80, but there’s still an opportunity to think about those things strategically.

So I think it’s really about how do we engage with different donors. It can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach for everyone.

JAG: Another element in last year’s report was that donors were more focused on causes related to Israel and combating antisemitism, and less on culture and family services and other issues. Is that holding through? 

DL: I think so. I think safety at home [is the priority]. Putting a finer point on that, how do we make sure that our kids are safe at school? How do we make sure that our families are safe during the High Holy Days? Being Zionist also means making sure that we can be safe in the States.

JAG: How are organizations changing their strategies around that? 

DL: I’m thinking about all the organizations that we’re working with right now. JewishColorado, [which this summer saw a deadly firebombing attack on a rally for hostages in Boulder, Colo.,] they’re raising money for an endowment with the focus on programs and security. Synagogues that we’re working with — that’s all security. 

Most of the campaigns that we’re doing in the Jewish community right now are endowments, so sustaining for the future, and security. That’s synagogues, federations, JCCs. Eight out of 10 [campaigns] are focusing on those pieces.