The 2008 Jewish Community Study of Greater Middlesex County. Summary Report

Transcription

1 The 2008 Jewish Community Study of Greater Middlesex County Summary Report Ira M. Sheskin, Ph.D. Director of the Jewish Demography Project of the Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies and Associate Professor Department of Geography and Regional Studies University of Miami Electronic copies of the data, reports, and slides from this study are available at and January 2009 Tevet 5769

2 Demographic Study Committees Barry Sherman Study Chair Ruth Bash Arthur Cohen Miriam Eichler Arthur Fliegelman Dr. Albert Friedes Martin Friedman Arlene Frumkin Mitchell Frumkin Dr. Albert Hochhauser Brian Kheel Dana Korbman Dr. Steven Lenger Elaine Machtiger Dr. Joseph Naus Sheryl Olitzky Ruth Marcus Patt Dr. David Rabinowitz Dr. Nathan Reiss Paul Rovinsky Abraham Schwartzbard Udi Shorr Dr. Eliot Spack Florence Stein Dr. Michael Wasserman David Yellin Lee Livingston, President Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County Staff Gerrie Bamira, Executive Director Susan Antman, Associate Director Laura Safran, Planning and Allocations Director Study Director Dr. Ira M. Sheskin -ii-

3 Dear Friends, We are pleased to present the results of the Greater Middlesex Community Study, conducted by renowned demographer Dr. Ira Sheskin. This document paints a picture of a Jewish community at an extraordinary moment in time. While the data reflect basic information -how many Jews live in Middlesex County; our levels of Jewish commitment, observance and education; rates of intermarriage; income and age levels; and the current demand for social services under Jewish auspices - it also points us toward the future, creating a vision of a vibrant community that unites to strengthen Jewish life in Middlesex County. The data will only be as helpful as is our willingness to use it wisely. The Jewish Federation has launched a major community planning initiative, chaired by Seth Gross, which will engage synagogues, agencies, and individuals throughout the community in setting goals and developing strategies to address key themes that emerge from this study. Continue to visit where we will share information as our planning work progresses. We are very proud of the collaborative effort that produced this document and are confident that these data will be instrumental in helping all of us work together to touch Jewish lives and build Jewish community in Greater Middlesex County, in Israel, and around the world. Sincerely, Lee Livingston Barry Sherman Gerrie Bamira President Study Chair Executive Director

4 -iv-

5 Table of Contents Page Major Themes of the Study i Maps xxi Major Findings Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities Introduction Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population Geographic Profile Demographic Profile Age Demographic Profile Household Size Demographic Profile Household Structure Demographic Profile Marital Status Demographic Profile Secular Education Demographic Profile Employment Status Demographic Profile Housing Value Demographic Profile Household Income Religious Profile Jewish Identification Religious Profile Practices Religious Profile Synagogue Attendance Religious Profile Types of Marriage Membership Profile Synagogues Membership Profile JCC and Jewish Organizations Feel Part of the Jewish Community Jewish Education of Adults Formal Jewish Education of Adults Informal Jewish Education of Children Preschool/Child Care Jewish Education of Children Jewish Day School Jewish Education of Children School Age Children Jewish Education of Children Informal Jewish Agencies Familiarity Jewish Day Schools Familiarity Jewish Agencies Perception Jewish Day Schools Perception v-

6 Table of Contents Page Social Service Needs Preference for Jewish-Sponsored Adult Care Facilities Israel Visits Emotional Attachment to Israel Anti-Semitism The Media Philanthropic Profile Overall Donations Philanthropic Profile JFGMC Donations Philanthropic Profile Other Donations Philanthropic Profile Market Share Philanthropic Profile Wills Philanthropic Profile Volunteerism Philanthropic Profile Attitudes Acknowledgments vi-

7 Major Themes of the Study Middlesex Has Shown a Small Decrease in Jewish Population in Recent Years and This Decrease Is Likely to Continue 56,600 persons live in 24,000 Jewish households in Middlesex, of whom 52,000 persons (92%) are Jewish. In addition to the 52,000 Jews in Middlesex, the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County also serves another 3,500 Jews in zip code (Somerset) in Somerset County. Middlesex has the third largest Jewish population in New Jersey. 9% of households in Middlesex are Jewish households, which is the seventh highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities. Three findings should be considered in examining changes in the size of the Middlesex Jewish community from First, according to the Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) Counting Project, the number of Jewish households decreased 14%, from an estimated 27,900 households in 2000 to 24,000 households in Some of this decrease may very well be due to an increase in cell phone-only households, particularly in the area around Rutgers, who are not listed in the telephone directories used for the DJN Counting Project. Second, according to the Jewish Federation Survey, the number of Jewish households who donated to the Jewish Federation Annual Campaign decreased by 27%, from 5,383 households in 2000 to 3,928 households in Third, according to the Synagogue Survey, the number of households in Middlesex who are members of a synagogue located in Middlesex or neighboring communities increased by 7%, from 8,839 households in 2000 to 9,467 households in The first two findings suggest a possible decrease in Jewish population, while the third points to a potential increase. However, note that an increase in synagogue membership may still occur in the face of a decrease in Jewish population. The study s findings suggest future stability in the Jewish population attributable to migration. 11% of Jewish households in Middlesex moved to the local community in the past five years, which is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities. The 11% suggests that an average of 523 Jewish households who currently live in Middlesex moved to Middlesex each year during the past five years (the in-migration rate). The 7% of Jewish households who will definitely or probably (3% definitely and 4% probably) move out of Middlesex within the next three years, which is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities, suggests that an average of between 232 and 520 Jewish households will move out of Middlesex each year within the next three years (the out-migration rate). Assuming that the current rate of in-migration continues for the next few years, these data suggest that the number of Jewish households in Middlesex will probably not change significantly during the next few years as a result of migration into and out of Middlesex. A decrease in the Middlesex Jewish population may result in the future from a birth rate that is lower than the death rate in the Jewish community. Middlesex has a large elderly population. 36% of persons in Jewish households are age 65 and over, compared to 16% nationally (NJPS 2000) and 13% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-jewish) as of More importantly, 23% of persons in Jewish households are age 75 and over, compared to 8% nationally and 6% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-jewish) as of The 23% age 75 and over is the fifth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities. vii

8 Major Themes of the Study The number of children age 0-4 in Jewish households is lower than the number of children age 5-9, which, in turn, is lower than the number of children age 10-14, which, in turn, is lower than the number of persons age This suggests a decreasing birth rate for persons in Jewish households in Middlesex over the past 20 years. Yet another indicator of a potential future decrease in Jewish population is that only 16% of adult children (from households in which the respondent is age 50 or over) who have established their own homes live in Middlesex, which is the fourth lowest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities. Thus, planning should occur in an environment that assumes a slowly decreasing Jewish population for the next few years. It may be that the rate of migration into the South, in particular, will increase as baby boomers begin to retire and that this increase will offset the expected decrease in population due to mortality. However, given the uncertainty about the future, the size of the Jewish population should be monitored at regular intervals by repeating the DJN Counting Project as soon as Welcoming New Jewish Households to the Middlesex Jewish Community and Identifying Existing Unknown Jewish Households Is Important An average of 523 Jewish households in Middlesex moved to Middlesex each year during the past five years. Efforts should be made to identify new households and welcome them to the Middlesex Jewish community. should be expanded to serve as a place for new residents and persons considering a move to Middlesex to report their name, mailing address, telephone number, and address. This information should then be followed up personally by lay volunteers. Information about the community and information from this study should be presented on the website so that potential migrants to Middlesex will be attracted to the community and will be able to select a neighborhood based on its Jewish demographics. 51% of the 24,000 Jewish households in Middlesex are on the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County s mailing list, which is well below average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities. The low percentage of Jewish households on the Jewish Federation's mailing list affects the ability of the Jewish Federation, other Jewish agencies, local synagogues, and other Jewish organizations to communicate with and serve the Jewish community. Potential additional Jewish households could be identified through the use of a CD-ROM telephone directory and a list of Distinctive Jewish Names (DJNs). While some of these households will turn out not to be Jewish, this can be sorted out on Super Sunday. Although only 23% of households in residence in Middlesex for less than five years donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year, the percentage increases to 46% of households in residence for five or more years. Thus, the potential rewards from finding new Jewish households as quickly as possible are significant. A Significant Geographic Shift in the Location of the Jewish Population Has Occurred According to the Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) Counting Project, two geographic areas in Middlesex the North and Highland Park/South Edison showed little change from viii

9 Major Themes of the Study 2008 in the percentage of Jewish households living in those areas. The percentage of Jewish households in the North decreased from 10% to 8%, and the percentage in Highland Park/South Edison decreased from 9% to 7%. In contrast, from , the percentage of Jewish households in the Central decreased from 48% to 42%, and the percentage in the South increased from 33% to 43%. The Jewish community should recognize this shift in the Jewish population toward the South and away from the Central and, to a smaller degree, the North and Highland Park/South Edison in the provision of services. Consideration Should Be Given to the Extension of Services and Programs to the South The South contains 43% of the Jewish households in Middlesex, up from 33% in The number of persons in Jewish households in the South increased from an estimated 16,300 persons in 2000 to 18,500 persons in In view of this shift in Jewish population, consideration should be given to the extension of services and programs to the South. In examining possible programs, the Jewish community should consider certain demographic factors in the South. The median age of persons in Jewish households is 75 years, with only 6% of persons in Jewish households age 0-17 and 72% age 65 and over. 24% of households have lived at their current address for less than five years, and 16% have lived in Middlesex for less than five years. The median household income in the South is only $61,000. The area is 3% Orthodox, 42% Conservative, 31% Reform, and 24% Just Jewish, and 4% of married couples are intermarried. 48% of households are synagogue members, and 50% reported having donated to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County in the past year. Monroe Township Is the Most Populous Area of Jewish Settlement Monroe Township (zip code 08831), located in the South, is the most populous area of Jewish settlement in Middlesex, containing 40% of the Jewish households. The 40% who live in the top zip code area is the highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities. The 66% who live in the top three zip code areas (08831, [East Brunswick], and [Old Bridge]) is the second highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities. The existence of these areas of high geographic concentration should be considered in the location of capital facilities and the provision of services to the Jewish community. The Jewish Community Needs to Expand Its Procedures to Track Jewish Households as They Move Within Middlesex The Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County should keep a record of the origin and destination zip codes of known Jewish households who move within Middlesex as address changes are received from the post office. Doing so over a 3-5 year period will yield significant data on intraregional migration at no cost. For the same reason, the Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) Counting Project should be repeated at regular intervals starting in 2012 to properly monitor the size and geographic distribution of the Jewish population. If significant geographic shifts in the location of the Jewish population occur, the Jewish community can respond with the provision of services and programs in new areas. ix

10 Major Themes of the Study Many Jews in Middlesex Have Significant Attachments to New Jersey and the New York Metropolitan Area 82% of adults in Jewish households in Middlesex were born in New York or New Jersey. 47% of Jewish households have lived in Middlesex for 20 or more years. 35% of households moved to Middlesex from elsewhere in New Jersey and 47% moved from New York. 25% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have adult children who have established their own homes in Middlesex and another 43%, within 90 minutes of Middlesex, implying the existence of many multi-generational families spread across the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. 55% of respondents who are employed full time or part time work mostly in Middlesex, while 30% work elsewhere in New Jersey and 13% work in New York. In 18% of households in which the respondent or spouse (if any) attended college, either one or both attended Rutgers-New Brunswick. Finally, 50% of Jewish respondents reported that they feel very much or somewhat part of the Middlesex Jewish community. These results argue for a community-building strategy which recognizes that while many Jews feel a significant attachment to the local Jewish community and its institutions, Middlesex is just a small part of a much larger metropolitan area. Significant Regional Variations Exist among the Geographic Areas: * Issues of Jewish Continuity Are Most Important in the North * Highland Park/South Edison Is an Enclave of Orthodox Jews * The Central Contains Many Children * The South Is a Retirement Community Significant variations exist among Middlesex s geographic areas in the geographic, demographic, religious, membership, and philanthropy profiles of the Jewish population. Both the geographic and demographic factors discussed below emphasize that the South is a retirement community, and planning for this area should be different than it is for the other geographic areas. Both the religious and membership profiles discussed below emphasize that Jewish continuity is strongest in Highland Park/South Edison and weakest in the North. Geography. 19% of households in the South live in Middlesex for less than ten months of the year, compared to 4%-6% in the other geographic areas. 16% of households in the South moved to Middlesex within the past five years, compared to 9% in the Central, 4% in Highland Park/South Edison, and 1% in the North. 24% of households in the South have lived at their current address for less than five years, compared to 18% in the Central, 13% in Highland Park/South Edison, and 7% in the North. 96% of households in the South own their home, compared to 89% in the Central, 86% in Highland Park/South Edison, and 84% in the North. Only 5% of households in the South will definitely or probably move within the next three years, compared to 7% of households in Highland Park/South Edison, 20% of households in the North, and 17% of households in the Central. Thus, as is typical in retirement communities like the South, most residences are owned and most respondents recognize that this is probably their final residence before the possibility of senior housing. Demography. The percentage of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is much higher in the South (72%) than in the North (26%), the Central (18%), and Highland Park/South Edison (13%). The percentage of children age 0-17 in Jewish households is x

11 Major Themes of the Study much higher in Highland Park/South Edison (34%) than in the Central (23%), the North (14%), and the South (6%). 64% of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in the Central, and 66% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households live in the South. The average household size is 3.35 persons in Highland Park/South Edison, compared to 2.76 persons in the Central, 2.25 persons in the North, and 1.82 persons in the South. 44% of households in Highland Park/South Edison are households with children age 0-17 at home, compared to 32% in the Central, 20% in the North, and 6% in the South. 74% of adults in Jewish households in the South are retired, compared to 28% in the North, 22% in the Central, and 19% in Highland Park/South Edison. Median household income is highest in Highland Park/South Edison ($120,000), followed by the Central ($110,000) and the North ($93,000), and is lowest in the South ($61,000). Religiosity. The percentage of Jewish respondents who are Orthodox is overwhelmingly higher in Highland Park/South Edison (49%) than in the other geographic areas (2%-5%). The percentage of respondents who are Conservative is highest in the South (42%), followed by the Central (30%) and the North (29%), and is lowest in Highland Park/South Edison (24%). The percentage of respondents who are Just Jewish is highest in the North (35%) and the Central (35%) and is lower in the South (24%) and Highland Park/South Edison (18%). The percentage of married couples who are intermarried is much higher in the North (38%) and the Central (20%) than in the South (4%) and Highland Park/South Edison (2%). Membership. Synagogue membership is highest in Highland Park/South Edison (76%) and is much lower in the South (48%), the Central (38%), and the North (35%). Jewish Community Center (JCC) membership in either the JCC of Middlesex County (Middlesex JCC) or another JCC is much higher in the North (15%), where the Middlesex JCC is located, than in the other geographic areas (1%-4%). Philanthropy. The percentage of households who donated to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County in the past year is higher in Highland Park/South Edison (65%) and the South (50%) than in the Central (36%) and the North (28%). Planning should occur with these regional variations in mind. The New Jersey Jewish News should consider special half- to full-page sections that are oriented toward each of the four geographic areas. Middlesex Has a Relatively Low Percentage of Children in Jewish Households Living with Adults Who Are or Were Divorced The divorce rate of 57 divorced adults per 1,000 married adults in Jewish households in Middlesex is the seventh lowest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. 19% of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in households in which an adult (not necessarily the parent) is or was divorced, which is the third lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. xi

12 Major Themes of the Study While Significant Levels of Wealth Exist in the Middlesex Jewish Community, Some Households Have Financial Concerns The median household income of $90,000 for Jewish households in Middlesex is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities, and the median household income of $141,000 for households with children is the fourth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities. The 44% of households earning an annual income of $100,000 and over is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities that have completed studies since 2000 and compares to 35% of all households (both Jewish and non-jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007 and 20% of all American households (both Jewish and non-jewish) as of The $372,000 median value of homes owned by Jewish households is above average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities. Thus, significant levels of wealth exist in the Middlesex Jewish community. However, about 2,900 Jewish households are considered to be low income households (earn an annual household income under $25,000), including 480 households (of whom 413 households are households with elderly persons) who live below the Federal poverty levels. Two (overlapping) population groups with significant percentages of low income households are households age 75 and over (30%) and elderly single households (33%). 19% of households in the South are low income households. In addition, 2% (408 households) of households (all of whom earn an annual income under $25,000) needed financial assistance in the past year, and 11% (1,331 households) of households with adults age needed help in finding a job or choosing an occupation in the past year. Thus, the Jewish community should be sensitive to its lower income members, while at the same time recognizing the potential that exists for increased philanthropy from wealthier households. Providing subsidies to low income households for Jewish identity-building programs should be considered. (Note that the Telephone Survey was conducted in June 2008, prior to the significant downturn in the economy during 2008.) Jewish Continuity Issues Are Different in Middlesex Than in Most Other Jewish Communities The issue of Jewish continuity in Middlesex is a complex one. On almost all measures of Jewishness, Middlesex is one of the more Jewish of the Jewish communities in the country. But, in many ways, this is a bifurcated community in which many households maintain a significant degree of commitment to their Jewish identity while for others Jewish identity is of lesser importance. Among about comparison Jewish communities, Middlesex has the second highest percentage of households who always or usually light Chanukah candles (84%) and who have a mezuzah on the front door (83%). It has the third highest percentage of respondents who keep kosher in and out of the home (12%) and the fourth highest percentage of households who keep a kosher home (23%). It has the fourth highest percentage of respondents who refrain from using electricity on the Sabbath (6%). It has the fifth highest percentage of households who always or usually participate in a Passover Seder (83%) and an average percentage of households who always or usually light Sabbath candles (25%). Middlesex has the second lowest percentage of households who always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home (10%). Thus, the level of religious observance in Middlesex is very high. xii

13 Major Themes of the Study The 14% of married couples who are intermarried is the second lowest of about 55 comparison Jewish communities. The 44% current synagogue membership is about average among about 55 comparison Jewish communities, and the 83% lifetime synagogue membership is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. The 38% Jewish organization membership is the seventh highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. The bifurcation in the Middlesex Jewish community is perhaps best illustrated by the following: 25% of Jewish households age keep a kosher home and 25% of Jewish respondents age attend synagogue services once per month or more, yet 27% of married couples in households age are intermarried and 22% of households age always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home. While 96% of households are involved Jewishly in some way (either through religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community, or Jewish philanthropy), for many, the extent of involvement in Jewish activity is minimal. Thus, efforts to engage Jewish households in Jewish life should take into account the significant polarization in Jewish behavior that exists in Middlesex. The North Is Different from Other Areas of Middlesex with Respect to Jewish Continuity The issue of Jewish continuity is of greater concern in the North than in the other geographic areas of Middlesex. This is best illustrated by the following comparisons. 11% of households in the North always or usually light Sabbath candles, compared to 74% in Highland Park/South Edison, 25% in the Central, and 20% in the South. 21% of households in the North always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home, compared to 16% in the Central, 4% in the South, and 3% in Highland Park/South Edison. 35% of Jewish respondents in the North never attend synagogue services, compared to 31% in the Central, 20% in the South, and 10% in Highland Park/South Edison and 38% of married couples in the North are intermarried, compared to 20% in the Central, 4% in the South, and 2% in Highland Park/South Edison. Thus, programs designed to enhance Jewish identity should be emphasized in the North. The Intermarriage Rate Is the Second Lowest among the Comparison Jewish Communities, but Is Still a Concern among Younger Couples The 14% of married couples who are intermarried (the couples intermarriage rate) in Middlesex is the second lowest of about 55 comparison Jewish communities. However, as is true in almost all the comparison Jewish communities, the trend in Middlesex is for higher rates of intermarriage among younger couples. The couples intermarriage rate decreases from 26% in households under age 35 and 27% in households age to 15% in households age and 4% in households age 65 and over. Among about comparison Jewish communities, the 26% couples intermarriage rate in households under age 35 is the fourth lowest, the 27% rate in households age is the seventh lowest, the 15% rate in households age is the fifth lowest, and the 5% rate in households age 65 and over is the fourth lowest. Thus, while the intermarriage rate among younger couples is still lower in Middlesex than in most comparison Jewish communities, intermarriage is still a concern among younger couples. xiii

14 Major Themes of the Study Integrating Intermarried Couples into the Middlesex Jewish Community Is Important While some intermarried couples contribute significantly to the Middlesex Jewish community, intermarriage clearly affects Jewish continuity. Levels of religious practice and other involvement in Jewish activity are particularly low in intermarried households. While 99% of in-married households are involved Jewishly in some way, only 85% of intermarried households are, and while many intermarried couples have at least some Jewish activity present in their household, on individual measures intermarried households are generally much less Jewishly-connected than in-married households. For example, 51% of in-married households are synagogue members, compared to only 16% of intermarried households, and 42% of in-married households are Jewish organization members, compared to only 5% of intermarried households. 51% of in-married households donated to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County in the past year, compared to just 13% of intermarried households. Of Jewish children age 0-17 being raised in married households in Middlesex, 9% are being raised in intermarried households and 4% are being raised in conversionary inmarried households. In intermarried households, only 33% of children are being raised Jewish, which is below average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities. 22% of households with children always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home. Welcoming Jewish children who are being raised in intermarried and conversionary in-married households (and who have non-jewish grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins) into the Middlesex Jewish community, while at the same time developing programs to encourage Jews to marry other Jews, represents a significant challenge. Only 20% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households feel very much or somewhat part of the Middlesex Jewish community, compared to 57% of respondents in in-married households. The importance of integrating intermarried households into the Middlesex Jewish community and encouraging them to lead a Jewish life, whether for the benefit of the Jewish children being raised in these households or for the potential to influence intermarried households to raise their children Jewishly, should not be minimized. Integrating intermarried households into the Jewish community would lead to greater support for Jewish institutions, increased Jewish philanthropy, and stronger ethnic attachments and identity. Jewish identity initiatives must carefully balance outreach to the intermarried population with inreach to moderately affiliated Jews. Each synagogue and Jewish organization needs to develop its own policies and programs for grappling with the issue of intermarriage. Programs to engage intermarried households in Jewish life and adult education programs for intermarried couples are probably best offered from the more neutral environment afforded by a Jewish Community Center. xiv

15 Major Themes of the Study A Coordinated Effort Should Be Considered to Increase Synagogue Membership Recognizing the importance of synagogues in promoting increased involvement in Jewish philanthropy, volunteerism, and other positive measures of Jewish identity, a coordinated effort to increase synagogue membership in Middlesex should be considered. The 44% of Jewish households who reported current synagogue membership is about average among about 55 comparison Jewish communities. The 44% current synagogue membership of households under age 35 is the fifth highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. Synagogue membership of households age (44%) and age 65 and over (49%) is about average and synagogue membership of households age (37%) is well below average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities. The 53% current synagogue membership of households with children is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities. Yet, the potential still exists for increased synagogue membership across all segments of the community. Current synagogue membership is low among households in residence in Middlesex for 0-4 years (30%), non-elderly couple households (30%), non-elderly single households (14%), Just Jewish households (16%), intermarried households (16%), Jewish organization non-member households (30%), households in which no adult attended Jewish education as a child (28%), households in which no adult visited Israel (29%), households who were not asked to donate to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County in the past year (26%), and households who did not donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year (29%). Attracting unaffiliated groups of Jews to synagogues in Middlesex can best be addressed through a coordinated, community-wide effort. The fact that 21% of synagogue nonmember households plan to join a synagogue in the future suggests that significant success could accrue from such efforts. Income Is a Factor in Synagogue Membership The strong relationship between household income and synagogue membership suggests that cost may be an important reason why more Jewish households in Middlesex are not synagogue members. Synagogue membership increases from 34% of households earning an annual income of $25,000-$50,000 to 40% of households earning $50,000-$100,000, 47% of households earning $100,000-$200,000, and 54% of households earning $200,000 and over. At odds with this trend is the high synagogue membership among households earning under $25,000 (45%). The fact that 88% of households earning under $25,000 are age 65 and over may help to explain this anomaly. Among other things, the Middlesex Jewish community should consider offering discounts for joint synagogue and Jewish Community Center (JCC) membership as a way of encouraging membership in both institutions if and when a new JCC is in operation. Also, synagogues should examine their dues structures to determine financial strategies to increase membership while sustaining services. xv

16 Major Themes of the Study JCC Membership in Middlesex Is Very Low Compared to Other Jewish Communities, and the Jewish Federation Needs to Consider an Effort to Build the Type of Jewish Campus That Exists in Many Jewish Communities, or Alternatively, to Find a Central Location from Which Community-Wide Events Can Be Staged During the past few years, the YMCA moved onto the campus of the Jewish Community Center of Middlesex County in Edison (Middlesex JCC). The YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley (YM-YWHA) in Highland Park ceased to operate except for a preschool, a day camp, and some senior programming. The YM-YWHA recently changed its name to the Campus for Jewish Life and a capital campaign has started for a new campus for this institution at the YM-YWHA day camp site in East Brunswick. (Note that the YM-YWHA is treated as a JCC for comparative purposes by this study.) 2% of Jewish households in Middlesex reported that they are current members of the Middlesex JCC, which is the third lowest of about 50 comparison JCCs. The 2% of households with children who are members of the Middlesex JCC is the second lowest of about 45 comparison JCCs. 7% of respondents reported that someone in their household participated in or attended a program at, or sponsored by, the Middlesex JCC in the past year, which is the second lowest of about 45 comparison JCCs. The 5% of households who participated in or attended a Middlesex JCC program in the past year without being a member of the Middlesex JCC is the fourth lowest of about 45 comparison JCCs and suggests a lack of interest in the JCC among non-member households. The low levels of familiarity with, and the weak perceptions of, the Middlesex JCC and the YM-YWHA may help to explain the low JCC membership levels in Middlesex. The 4% of respondents who are very familiar with the Middlesex JCC is the lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs and the 7% who are very familiar with the YM-YWHA is the fourth lowest. 16% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Middlesex JCC perceive it as excellent, which is the fourth lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs and the lowest of any comparison JCC with a full-service facility. 12% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the YM-YWHA perceive it as excellent, which is the second lowest of the comparison JCCs. The 26% fair and poor perceptions of both the Middlesex JCC and YM-YWHA is the second highest of the comparison JCCs. The major reason for not joining the Middlesex JCC most commonly reported by respondents in non-member households is no need for the services offered (40%). The 40% is about average among about 40 comparison JCCs. The 6% of respondents who reported cost as the major reason is the third lowest of the comparison JCCs, indicating that cost does not seem to be a major impediment to membership. But the 29% of respondents who reported distance from home as the major reason for not joining the Middlesex JCC is the fourth highest of the comparison JCCs, emphasizing that the location of the current facility is an issue. The JCC is located in the northern part of zip code (Edison), which lies in the far northern end of Middlesex, and only 8% of Jewish households in Middlesex live in the North. Membership in the Middlesex JCC is much higher in the North (13%) than in the other geographic areas (1%-3%). If a JCC facility were centrally located and could attract even 10% of all Middlesex Jewish households, membership would likely be sufficient to sustain its activities. xvi

17 Major Themes of the Study 31% of households who are not members of the Middlesex JCC are current members of another fitness facility or health club. The JCC s market share of the health club and fitness facility market among Jewish households is only 6%, which is the second lowest of about 25 comparison JCCs, suggesting that Jewish households in Middlesex have a preference for other fitness facilities over the Middlesex JCC. Respondents were asked: If a new YM-YWHA were built in East Brunswick, would you definitely, probably, probably not, or definitely not seriously investigate joining the new Y? In this question respondents are asked about prospective behavior, and in examining the results it should be noted that some respondents have difficulty projecting their behavior and that unforeseen events may alter projected behavior. However, in the aggregate, the results are indicative of the community s propensity to investigate joining a new Y. The study specifically did not ask about the likelihood that a household would join a new Y, only the likelihood that the household would seriously investigate joining a new Y. 12% (2,880 households) of households would definitely seriously investigate joining a new Y; 24% (5,856 households), probably; 33%, probably not; 28%, definitely not; and 3% don t know. In total, 36% (8,736 households) of households would definitely or probably seriously investigate joining a new Y. It should be noted that 15% (3,576 households) of Jewish households were members of the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley in the past. 51% of past members of the YM-YWHA would definitely or probably seriously investigate joining a new Y located in East Brunswick. According to the JCC Survey, 1,000 Jewish households who live in Middlesex (4%) are members of the Middlesex JCC. Thus, the Telephone Survey implies that local JCC membership is 2 percentage points lower than that suggested by the JCC Survey. This disparity could be attributable to the inclusion in the 2008 data from the JCC Survey of households who are members of the campus on which both the Middlesex JCC and YMCA are located. It likely also explains why the Middlesex JCC shows an increase in membership from 300 Jewish households in 2000 to 1,000 Jewish households in Effective marketing of the Middlesex JCC, or another more centrally located facility, in an attempt to increase membership would need to address five main points: a perception on the part of many non-members that they have no need for the services offered, a preference on the part of Jewish households for other fitness facilities, the significant distance to the current JCC facility for most households in Middlesex, the low levels of familiarity with the Middlesex JCC and the YM-YWHA, and low overall perceptions of the Middlesex JCC and YM-YWHA. Moreover, the community needs to consider the best model to deliver community-wide events and JCC-type activities. The current model is clearly not as effective as the models used in other Jewish communities. Only one JCC is needed, although it might offer activities from multiple locations that serve different geographic areas. A merger of the Middlesex JCC and the new Campus for Jewish Life should be explored. The community should then consider a location in the Central, with a branch in the North and another in the South. xvii

18 Major Themes of the Study JCCs and Synagogues Are Not Competing Institutions Across American Jewish communities, it has been claimed that significant numbers of Jewish households join a Jewish Community Center (JCC) instead of a synagogue. Yet, the results for most of the comparison Jewish communities show that such is not the case. (Since only 3% of households in Middlesex are JCC members, the Middlesex results are not useful for this discussion.) In 32 of about 45 comparison JCCs, the percentage of Jewish households who are JCC members but are not synagogue members is 5% or less, and in only one community is the percentage as high as 10%. In Middlesex, 55% of households are neither synagogue nor JCC members. As plans go forward with a new model for offering community-wide events and JCC-type activities, synagogues and JCCs should recognize that the services they offer more often complement one another than compete. Synagogues and JCCs should coordinate efforts to encourage membership in both institutions, perhaps by offering discounts for joint synagogue and JCC membership. Multiple Entry Points to the Middlesex Jewish Community Need to Be Marketed The organized Jewish community in Middlesex needs to market the many different ways to be Jewish to those who are unaffiliated or only marginally involved. Most Jews who are unaffiliated or marginally involved view Judaism only in terms of synagogue life and religious practice. The ethnic, historical, social, and cultural connections to Judaism should also be emphasized. Adult Jewish education programs and classes, already attended by 28% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex in the past year, as well as Jewish cultural and social events and programs, may attract some unaffiliated Jews. 37% of Jewish respondents attended a theater, music, or dance program in the past year because it had Jewish content, and such cultural activities may be attractive to other Jews. Emphasis on tikkun olam and social action programs may attract others, and Israel-oriented programming may attract still others. Jewish organizations other than synagogues and Jewish Community Centers (JCCs), such as Hadassah and B nai B rith, often provide relatively inexpensive ways for Jews to become involved in Jewish life. In Middlesex, 38% of Jewish households reported current membership in a Jewish organization (other than a synagogue or JCC), which is the seventh highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. The organized Jewish community should recognize these types of organizations as good vehicles for involving Jews with specific interests for whom cost of membership is an obstacle and encourage participation in them. Attendance in Formal Jewish Education Programs as Children Shows Strong Positive Correlations with Jewish Behavior as Adults This study confirms the results of many other Jewish community studies that show strong positive correlations between formal Jewish education (Jewish day school and supplemental school) as children and Jewish behavior as adults, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these relationships. In general, on most measures of Jewishness (such as religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy and volunteerism), formal Jewish xviii

19 Major Themes of the Study education as children is positively correlated with adult Jewish behavior. For example, 73% of Jewish households in Middlesex in which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a child and 43% of households in which an adult attended a supplemental school as a child are synagogue members, compared to 28% of households in which no adult attended formal Jewish education as a child. As another example, 94% of married households in which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a child and 84% of married households in which an adult attended a supplemental school as a child are in-married, compared to 63% of married households in which no adult attended formal Jewish education as a child. This argues that to build for the future and help preserve Jewish identity and continuity, the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County should continue to support Jewish day schools and should consider extending additional support to supplemental schools, which, according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, are attended by the vast majority of Middlesex's Jewish children age 5-12 who are involved in formal Jewish education. 66% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the past year consider providing Jewish education for children to be a very important motivation in their decision to donate to a Jewish organization, which is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities. Donors need to be made aware of the results of this and other Jewish community studies that show the strong correlation between formal Jewish education as children and Jewish behavior as adults in an effort to increase philanthropic support for providing Jewish education for children. Attendance in Informal Jewish Education Programs as Children Shows Strong Positive Correlations with Jewish Behavior as Adults This study confirms the results of many other Jewish community studies that show strong positive correlations between informal Jewish education (specifically Jewish sleep away camp, Jewish teenage youth group, and college Hillel/Chabad) as children/teenagers and Jewish behavior as adults, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these relationships. In general, on most measures of Jewishness (such as religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy and volunteerism), informal Jewish education as children is positively correlated with adult Jewish behavior. For example, 94% of married Jewish households in Middlesex in which an adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college (excluding the High Holidays) are in-married, compared to 78% of married households in which no adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college. This argues that to build for the future and to preserve Jewish identity and continuity, the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County should support programs that provide assistance to these types of informal Jewish education. Adult Jewish Education Programs Should Be Expanded, Particularly for Women The 74% of born or raised Jewish adults in Middlesex who received some formal Jewish education as children is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities. However, the difference in Jewish education levels between males and females in this community is very wide: 89% of born or raised Jewish adult males received some formal Jewish education as children, compared to only 61% of born or raised Jewish adult xix

20 Major Themes of the Study females. The difference exists in every age group and widens at age 50 and over. In the past year, 29% of female respondents attended an adult Jewish education program or class, compared to 24% of male respondents. This suggests that adult Jewish education programs or classes directed at women may have a potentially larger market. Increasing Jewish Day School Enrollment Means Competing with the Public Schools, Not Non-Jewish Private Schools Unlike in many Jewish communities, but as seen in Bergen and Monmouth, the major competition for the Jewish day schools in Middlesex are the public schools, not the non- Jewish private schools. 86% of non-orthodox Jewish children age 5-17 attend a public school, 13% attend a Jewish day school, and 1% attend a non-jewish private school. Thus, 91% of non-orthodox Jewish children age 5-17 who go to private school attend a Jewish day school. This means that the major competition for a good education in Middlesex is the free public school system. Respondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 (none of whom currently attend a Jewish day school, have attended in the past, or will definitely attend in the future) were asked the major reasons they did not, will not, or might not send their Jewish children to a Jewish day school. 42% of respondents reported tuition cost as a major reason, and 36% reported a belief in public schools. This makes the goal of increasing Jewish day school enrollment in Middlesex more difficult to achieve. The Levels of Familiarity with, and the Perceptions of, the Jewish Agencies and Jewish Day Schools in Middlesex Are Low Compared to other Jewish communities, a significant portion of the Middlesex Jewish community is not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County and other Jewish agencies, ranging from the 45% of respondents who are not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation to the 76% who are not at all familiar with the Jewish Community Center of Middlesex County (Middlesex JCC). Compared to about 35 comparison Jewish communities, the 15% of respondents who are very familiar with the Jewish Federation is below average and the 8% who are very familiar with the Jewish Family and Vocational Service (JFVS) is the fifth lowest. Compared to about 40 comparison JCCs, the 7% of respondents who are very familiar with the YM- YWHA of Raritan Valley (YM-YWHA) is the fourth lowest and the 4% who are very familiar with the Middlesex JCC is the lowest. Compared to about 45 comparison Jewish day schools, the 23% of respondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 who are very familiar with the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley (Schechter) and the 22% who are very familiar with the Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva (RPRY) are about average, while the 13% who are very familiar with the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School (MAYHS) is well below average. The majority (74%-87%) of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies (and were able to provide a perception) have positive (excellent and good) perceptions of them. However, compared to other Jewish communities, the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies are not as well perceived by the Middlesex Jewish community. xx