A Demographic Study of the Houston Listed Jewish Community The Jewish Federation of Greater Houston

Transcription

1 A Demographic Study of the Houston Listed Jewish Community The Jewish Federation of Greater Houston Submitted by: David Lytle Cofounder and Chief Marketing Officer March-April,

2 A Study of the Houston Listed Jewish Community April 2002 Federation Cover Letter April 2002 We are very pleased to provide you with this, the final report of the 2001 Study of the Jewish Community of Houston. This study, two years in the conceptualization and design and one year in the implementation and analysis, is the first comprehensive overview of the Jewish community produced since The Study is unique in many ways. First, the methodology provided a cost efficient approach to understanding the demographics of the Houston Jewish community, while at the same time being actionable. We are indebted to Stephen Klineberg, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology at Rice University, whose understanding of Houston s population and whose commitment to community research is beyond measure. Dr. Klineberg provided pro bono consulting services to the Jewish community both for the 1985 study and again for this study. Dr. Klineberg has written a preface to the report, which can be found following this message. His intellect, energy and sense of humor provided much needed direction in the early stages of this study. Second, unlike the 1985 study, which was financed solely by the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston, this study was a true partnership between the Jewish Federation and multiple community organizations and institutions. We are grateful to the more than thirty-five community organizations that provided their data bases, their financial resources and their volunteers. Without their support, this study would not have been possible. Third, the study immediately precedes the release of the data from the 2000 National Jewish Population Survey, conducted by United Jewish Communities, the umbrella organization comprised of 189 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities located across North America. The analysis of the Houston data and the report from the national study should provide Houston s Jewish communal institutions and their leadership a fertile set of facts and observations upon which to make current and future decisions regarding programs and services needed by the community.

3 Page 4 This report brings to a close more than three years of difficult, arduous, and demanding discussion and debate. We are extremely grateful to all those organizations that participated in the study. A special thank you to the individuals who participated in the committee that planned and facilitated the study. Your commitment to our Jewish community is extraordinary and appreciated. May our Jewish community go from strength to greater strength. Gerald Merfish Demographic Study Chair Esther Polland President Noga Tobias Demographic Study Coordinator Lee Wunsch Executive Vice President

4

5 Page 6 Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge a few individuals who have made special contributions to this study. Lee Wunsch, Executive Vice President of The Jewish Federation of Greater Houston, had a vision over three years ago for a study of the community resulting in an active planning tool for years to come. He challenged us to design a research instrument capable of actionable results and implications long after the demographers and statisticians turned off their computers. I would like to thank the members of the Houston Demographic Study Committee for their diligence. A special thanks goes to the chair, Gerald Merfish, and the Federation Demographic Study Coordinator, Noga Tobias. Our two demographers, Pini Herman and Bruce Phillips, have once again faithfully served another Jewish community by providing the expertise, insight, and understanding necessary for a superior study. Randy LeGrant, cofounder of New Sources, deserves special mention for reading numerous drafts, generating countless maps, and prodding us to fruition. This study of a Jewish community is the first of its kind in the use of PRIZM neighborhood typing for the respondents. The inclusion of PRIZM enables the direct extrapolation of insights gained on Jewish observances, attitudes, and demographics into areas not formally sampled in the study. Houston agencies participating in the Data Safe can use these results to more accurately describe their own constituencies, rather than just using the overall propensities generated by the research. It is our collective hope that the intelligence we have assembled will provide a significant role in strengthening the Houston Jewish community for years to come. David E. Lytle April 2002

6 Page 7 Demographic Study Committee Gerald Merfish Chair Noga Tobias Demographic Study Coordinator Arthur Miller Brad Rauch Brian Andes Daniel Gold David Neuberger Esther Polland Ethan Schultz Fran Brochstein Gloria Ribnick Joseph Eichberg Joseph Kirk Kenneth Kates Larissa LeBovidge Larry Levy Lee Wunsch Linda Block Linda Brandt Madeleine Appel Mark Brookner Martin Cominsky Marvin Woskow Mary Jean Weston Mitchell Lukin Randy Wile Rene Karpas Robert Brackman Sheila Sokol Stan Poscovsky Irving Pozmantier Roger Stern Barry Lewis Michael Rubinstein Vicki Samuels Levy Rabbi Samuels

7 Page 8 Partnering Agencies American Israel Public Affairs Committee American Jewish Committee Anti-Defamation League Chabad Lubavitch Congregation Beth El Congregation Beth Israel Congregation Beth Shalom of the Woodlands Congregation Beth Yeshurun Congregation Brith Shalom Congregation Emanu El Congregation Shaar Hashalom Emery-Weiner School Goldberg B'nai B'rith Towers Hadassah Houston Hillel Foundation Jewish Community Center Jewish Community North Jewish Family Service Jewish Herold Voice Meyerlan Miniyan Mishpachat Alizim Robert M. Beren Academy Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care Services Southwest Zionist Youth Commission-Young Judaea Temple Beth Tikvah Temple Beth Torah Temple Sinai The Shlenker School Torah Day School of Houston United Orthodox Synagogues William S. Malev School Young Israel of Houston

8 Page 9 Methodology From a list collated from Houston Jewish organizations, 801 randomly chosen households with at least one person who identified as Jewish through religion, parentage or upbringing were interviewed during September 2001 through November 2001 for the Houston Jewish Community Description and Action Plan. The methodology of this study only enables the description of characteristics of those households somehow formally associated by being listed and contacted from the organizational lists. These associated households will be referred to in the following as the community, Demographic studies often begin with an estimate of a community s population. This study was not designed to create an estimate of the Jewish population of the greater Houston area. Houston s Jewish population has been variously estimated in past as being comprised of around forty thousand Jewish persons. The initiators of this study felt that it was vital to discern the characteristics of the Jewish community that had some contact, even the most minimal of contact, which would make them known to the institutions of the Houston Jewish community. This study describes that population of known Jews, who from other community studies may constitute fifty to seventy-five percent of a community s Jews. The households interviewed are representative of the Houston Jewish community which has some formal contact with the institutions of the Jewish community. The research committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston made a decision that at this stage the Jewish households which were known or had made themselves known to a Jewish agency were the primary focus of this study. New Sources, acting as the blind trust for the list data to be used for the survey sample, received constituent lists from 36 Jewish agencies in Houston. The approximately 90,000 records collected in May 2001 were systematically cleaned for address standardization, encoded for PRIZM neighborhood typing, appended with telephones where possible (and verified for telephones where the agency listed them), updated through National Change of Address, and househeld across the entire data cauldron. After several cleaning, surname ethnication, and deduping steps, 16,641 househeld records remained to serve as the basis for further analytics for the listed community. Almost 7% of the records received from Houston agencies were found to have changed addresses from the NCOA step (twice the rate we usually see). The range of address changes was 1% to a high of 14%. Cleansing the phone numbers proved equally rewarding. Ten percent of the househeld file had no phone available and none could be appended. Of the remainder, almost 11% resulted in a different phone number being appended to the record and 9% appended a phone number from blank.

9 Page 10 In short, the lists taken into the data cauldron were in dire need of hygiene, with high percentages of addresses and phones being repaired. Clearly it is in the best interests of the community to implement the necessary maintenance of their lists going forward. An 801 household telephone interview sample of listed households of the Houston Jewish community developed by New Sources from Jewish institutional lists in the greater Houston, Texas area was contacted from September 1, 2001 to November 15, Households were contacted only at times which the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Holidays that would not prevent orthodox Jews from answering the telephone. Sample households were contacted at least six times on differing days and times, including Sundays, before the household was classified as no answer. Experienced, trained and well-supervised interviewers employed by California Survey Research Services located in Los Angeles undertook the interviewing. Each household was initially screened in order to qualify it for the study. A qualified study household contained at least one person who met one of the following criteria: stated that they were Jewish or had a Jewish parent or was raised a Jew. Approximately one-third of the households on the Houston Jewish institutional lists did not qualify for this study. The average length of a qualified study household telephone interview was 25 minutes. If a household interview was not completed during the initial contact, the household was re-contacted as many times as necessary until the interview was completed or until the 800-interview study quota was attained. The overall margin of error for this regional study of over 800 respondents is a very desirable 1-2%. Given the nature of the split-sample research design employed to collect responses on more questions within the 25 minute survey, some questions are asked of a subset of the 800 respondents. Doing so results in slightly higher margins of error for those questions, but if a question has been asked of a split sample of 400 respondents and there are at least 20 responses from the sample then the margin of error should be approximately 5-7%.

10 Page 11 Figure 1 - Houston analysis areas North West Memorial Central City Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend

11 Page 12 Study Area ZIP5 Definitions (sorted by Study Area) Study Area Name ZIP5 Study Area Name ZIP5 Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty Clear Lake Memorial Clear Lake Memorial Clear Lake Memorial Clear Lake Memorial Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston 77076

12 Page 13 Study Area ZIP5 Definitions (sorted by Study Area), continued Study Area Name ZIP5 Study Area Name ZIP5 North Houston North Houston North Houston North Houston North Houston Other North Houston Other North Houston Other North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston North Houston North Houston 77389

13 Page 14 Study Area ZIP5 Definitions (sorted by ZIP5) ZIP5 Study Area Name ZIP5 Study Area Name Central City SW Houston Central City Ft Bend Cty Central City Central City Central City West Houston Central City Memorial Central City Memorial Central City Clear Lake Central City Clear Lake Central City Clear Lake Central City Memorial North Houston North Houston Other North Houston Central City North Houston North Houston North Houston Central City North Houston Central City North Houston Central City SW Houston North Houston West Houston West Houston North Houston Memorial SW Houston SW Houston Clear Lake Central City North Houston Central City West Houston Central City West Houston Central City West Houston SW Houston SW Houston Clear Lake West Houston Clear Lake West Houston SW Houston West Houston SW Houston SW Houston North Houston Clear Lake North Houston North Houston West Houston Clear Lake West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston SW Houston North Houston Central City North Houston Clear Lake West Houston

14 Page 15 Study Area ZIP5 Definitions (sorted by ZIP5) continued ZIP5 Study Area Name ZIP5 Study Area Name North Houston North Houston SW Houston SW Houston Central City SW Houston SW Houston Ft Bend Cty Central City Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston North Houston North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston West Houston North Houston West Houston North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Other North Houston Other North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Ft Bend Cty North Houston Clear Lake North Houston Clear Lake Clear Lake

15 Page 16 Implications Age and Gender Distribution: Finding: The known Jewish population of Houston has an age bulge created by the post- World War II baby boom and this is also reflected in the large number of their children. The bulges of these two generations are farther away than they are in the general population, which tends to marry and have children at earlier stages. Jewish babyboomers often have children in their households, long after their non-jewish neighbors children may have left school and home. Implication for Planning: Differences in childbearing patterns are a factor in differences in perceptions and attitudes between the Jewish and general non-jewish community regarding topics such as the availability and quality of schooling in a community. Additionally, the uneven growth of the Jewish child population resulting from the original post WWII baby boom subject Jewish school planners to a boom and bust pattern of enrollment in early and elementary Jewish education. If all other factors remain the same, the entering classes in Jewish educational frameworks in the next decade are going to be significantly smaller than in the past decade. Finding: The age distribution of the known Jewish community shows that the graying of the community will continue, as baby-boomers will live longer than their parents. Implication for Planning: Many of the Jewish persons not currently known to the Houston Jewish community may become dependent or needy of services and it is likely that Jews currently unknown to the institutions of the Jewish community will emerge from their lack of contact with the organized Jewish community over the next two decades. This may result in a strain on the existing Jewish services as they ramp up to serve this emerging elderly population. Jewish Residential Concentrations: Finding: The known Jews in Houston are concentrated in the three contiguous Jewish Core areas: Southwest Houston, Memorial, and Central City. Almost two out of five (37 percent) Houston Jews live in Southwest Houston alone. Implication for Planning: The largest number of any target population will be found in Jewish Core area, but the different sub-communities have different profiles. Jewish Children: Finding: The largest number of known Jewish children (60 percent) live in the Houston Jewish Core. Two suburban areas have disproportionately large numbers of Jewish children. Children under 18 constitute 37 percent of the known Jews in Fort Bend and 40 percent of the known Jews in North Houston. Similarly, even though the absolute

16 Page 17 number of married couples with children live in the Houston Jewish core, known Jewish families with children are also concentrated in Fort Bend and North Houston. Families with children account for 64 percent of the known Jewish households in North Houston and 44 percent of the known Jewish households in West Houston. Implications for Planning: Fort Bend and North Houston are especially attractive to Jewish families. Even though the majority of Jewish families are found in the Houston Jewish Core, agencies with an interest in families and/or children should be cognizant of the residential concentrations in these two areas. Family Cycle Finding: Almost one third of the known Jewish households in Houston are married couples with children. Another third of the known Jewish households are married couples empty nesters whose children have grown. Only 2 percent of the known Jewish households are married couples who have not yet had children. Only 6 percent of the known Jewish households are young singles (under 45 years of age). Thus, less than 10 percent of the known Jewish households are in a position to have a first child within the coming decade. Implications for Planning: The number of families with children in the known Jewish community will decline and the number of empty nesters and one person households will grow. This has already happened in Central Houston. Income Finding: The known Jewish community in Houston is relatively affluent. More than a third of the known Jewish households reported incomes of $100,000 or more. But not all the known Jewish households are affluent: more than a quarter (26 percent) have annual incomes below $50,000. The most affluent known Jewish households (incomes of $250,000 or more) are concentrated in Central City and Memorial. The next most affluent group ($100,000-$250,000) are concentrated in Central City and Southwest Houston. The least affluent of the known Jewish households (under $50,000) are also concentrated in Central City and Southwest Houston. Again, the concentration of both affluent and non-affluent households in Southwest Houston reflects the overall concentration of known Jewish households in Houston in this area. Memorial is the most affluent area with 48 percent of the known Jewish households reporting incomes of $100,000 or more. Using an annual income of $100,000 as an indicator of affluence, the next most affluent areas in order are West Houston (48 percent), Central City (46 percent), North Houston (38 percent), Fort Bend (36 percent), Southwest Houston (29 percent), Clear Lake (17 percent), and other areas (29 percent). Implications for Planning: The least affluent and most affluent of the known Jewish households are all concentrated in Southwest Houston. When it comes to philanthropy, the most affluent are literally being asked to help their Jewish neighbors. West Houston should be an area to watch for philanthropy Although only a tenth of the known Jewish

17 Page 18 households live in West Houston, the proportion of affluent households there is the second highest in Houston. Education Finding: The known Jewish population is highly educated. Four out of five known Jewish adults have gone beyond high school, and almost two out of five known Jewish adults have attained an advanced degree. Implications for Planning: The high educational level has implications for every aspect of organized Jewish life in Houston. Educated populations are attracted to sophisticated programs as well as to ongoing study in adult Jewish learning programs. Depending on the particular areas of expertise, the educational attainment of the known Houston Jewish community provides a potentially important resource. Generation Finding: Fifty-one percent of known Houston Jews are fourth generation, meaning that their parents and grandparents are American born (full definitions of generations can be found in the Migration section). Implications for Planning: Houston is becoming an increasingly Americanized population. Fourth generation Jews have no foreign-born parents or grandparents. Place of Birth Finding: Just over half (52.2 percent) of Houston Jews were born in Texas, and another quarter came from the East Coast. Implications for Planning: Houston is becoming an increasingly stable Jewish community with strong local roots. The large immigration from the East Coast is part of the larger Jewish migration from East to West. Patterns of Migration to Houston Finding: Almost a third (31 percent) of Jewish movers came to Houston from elsewhere in Texas, followed by the East Coast (30 percent). Implications for Planning: The migration patterns of known Jews to Houston mirror the place of birth and reinforce the observation that Houston is becoming an increasingly stable Jewish community with strong local roots. The large immigration from the East Coast is part of the larger Jewish migration from East to West. Decade of Migration Finding: Migration to Houston grew in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s, and has picked up again in Implications for Planning: Jewish migration to Houston closely follows the economic cycle. The economic growth of Houston can be useful to the Federation for anticipating Jewish population growth.

18 Page 19 Plans to Move Finding: Only one in five known Jewish Houston households is planning to move. Most of these anticipated moves will be to another neighborhood in Houston. Implications for Planning: The Jewish population in Houston will remain stable, and the distribution of known Jewish households in Houston will remain consistent over the next few years. New moves will be in the direction of Bellaire, Memorial, and Meyerland. Use of Services Finding: Counseling was the most commonly needed social service (one out of six known Jewish households reported needing this service). The less affluent of the known Jewish households were the most likely to have sought this service under Jewish auspices. The more affluent of the known Jewish households purchase counseling services privately. Implications for Planning: This pattern is typical in most Jewish communities. Services for Seniors Finding: Among senior households, transportation was the most needed service, but only 7 percent of senior households needed that service. One in ten of the known Jewish households in Houston reported helping to care for elderly relatives. Implications for Planning: Houston seniors are generally self-sufficient or receive help from a relative. Pre-School Finding: Known Jewish parents overwhelmingly use Jewish day care or pre-school services. Those who do not use such services had considered them but chose non-jewish day care or pre-school based on location or perceived quality of care. Implications for Planning: The investment in Jewish sponsored day care was a result of the 1986 survey. These services bring the majority of Jewish families into the Jewish orbit early in the life cycle. Public School Finding: The majority of known Jewish children in Houston attend public school (63 percent). Children not in the public school system were twice as likely to attend a Jewish day school (25 percent) as a non-jewish private school (12 percent). The main reason more Jewish parents do not send their kids to a Jewish day school were logistic: current schools are not accessible or child would be to old to switch if a new day school opened. Implications for Planning: Thought should be given to how to overcome issues of location of Jewish day schools. Additionally, the decline in the number of Jewish children expected to enter the public and private educational systems in the next decade means that they will be even a smaller proportion of the overall Houston student population. This may result in greater needs for advocacy and cultural sensitization of

19 Page 20 non-jewish Houston for a Jewish student and parent population who will be even a smaller minority in the general and school population. Jewish Education Finding: Children in the known Jewish families almost overwhelmingly (87 percent) have received a Jewish education at some point, but only 35 percent continue after Bar/Bat Mitzvah. Implications for Planning: Given the overall cohesiveness of the Houston Jewish community and the importance of post-bar/bat Mitzvah Jewish involvement, formal Jewish education beyond age 13 should be a priority. Jewish Camping Finding: Jewish camping is strong in Houston: two-thirds of Houston Jewish children went to a summer camp organized by a Jewish organization. Half of the parents who did not send their kids to a Jewish summer camp would have preferred to do so if cost, quality, and other factors were equal. Implications for Planning: This augurs well for the future of the Jewish community in Houston because Jewish camps are important for Jewish identity formation. The responses of parents whose children did not attend suggest there may be a need for scholarship aid for some children. Moreover, Jewish camps could be a basis for continued teenage involvement during the year. Youth Groups Finding: Over a third (37 percent) of the children in known Jewish families belong to youth groups. The Orthodox and Conservative Youth groups (NCSY and USY) account for 40 percent of youth group memberships with BBYO accounting for another 24 percent. The Reform youth movement (NFTY) was not mentioned. Implications for Planning: The rare mention of the JCC youth group is consistent with the finding that JCC s appeal to the over age 40 group. The popularity of the two denominationally based youth groups is consistent with the finding that the synagogue is the central Jewish institution in Houston. Adult Jewish Education and Cultural Activities Finding: Half of all respondents reported participating in adult Jewish education in the past 3 three years, some of them quite intensively. Readership of Jewish periodicals and newspapers and following news about Jewish topics and Israel is very high. Implications for Planning: This is consistent with the advanced educational level of the known Jewish community. It strengthens the notion that adult education is connection to the Jewish community of Houston.

20 Page 21 Intermarriage Finding: In other Jewish communities, intermarried Jews were less likely to be formally associate with the Jewish community and thus were probably under-represented in the sample. As in the other Jewish communities, younger Jews are the most likely to be married to a non-jew. Intermarried couples are disproportionately found in the further out areas such as Clear Lake and North Houston. This is a pattern found in other Jewish communities. Implications for Planning: There are two groups of intermarried families: those who live in core Jewish areas and those who live further out. The former group are a natural target population for outreach, whereas the children of the latter group are the least likely to live near other Jews and thus especially in need of outreach. Children of Intermarriage Finding: The great majority of children of known intermarried couples are being raised as Jews (72 percent). This figure is higher than in other Jewish communities, possibly because families raising their children as Jews are more likely to be associated with the Jewish community. Parents who report raising their children also report other Jewish activities in the home. Implications for Planning: The Houston Jewish community has a growing, but Jewishly oriented population of intermarried Jews. Outreach to the intermarried population can be a priority. Jewish Organizations Finding: The known Jewish households are highly associated with Jewish organizations. This is in part because they are over-represented in a sample of known Jews, but it is also consistent with the overall pattern of communal cohesiveness discussed throughout this report. Males are most likely to belong to the JCC while females are most likely to be involved with Hadassah. Jews under 45 were the least likely to be involved with the JCC and the most likely to mention a grass-roots Jewish organization. Implications for Planning: The strong patterns of organizational membership and leadership will contribute to the cohesiveness of the Houston Jewish community. The JCC might look into why younger Jews do not mention it as a membership organization with an eye toward involving them in the future. The Federation should learn more about the grass-roots organizations mentioned by younger Jews, since these were not previously known to the community. Jewish Organizational Associations by Area Finding: Membership in Jewish organizations is highest in the three core Jewish areas of Southwest Houston, Memorial, and Central City. The Federation, the American Jewish Committee, and the ADL for example, were not mentioned as a membership organization by any respondents outside of the three core Jewish areas Implications for Planning: The organized Jewish community should consider outreach to Jews in the less Jewishly concentrated suburbs.

21 Page 22 Jewish Community Center Finding: Half of all the known Jewish households in Houston used the JCC in some way during the past year, and a fifth reported paying membership dues. The known Jewish households who are not members gave three reasons for not buying a membership in the JCC: no need of services offered (35 percent), distance (27 percent) and cost (23 percent). In addition, over a third of the non-members of the JCC indicated that they preferred the facilities offered by health and fitness clubs. Older respondents were far more likely than under age 45 respondents to say they were involved in the JCC as a membership organization. Implications for Planning: The JCC is already a strong and central organization. Nonetheless, the study findings raise two issues for consideration: (1) How to convert JCC users into JCC members and (2) How to more intensively involve younger Jews in the organizational aspects of the JCC. Houston Jews are Communal Leaders Finding: Close to half of the known Jewish households in Houston that belong to both Jewish and non-jewish organizations have been leaders in both kinds of organizations. Almost two out of five respondents reported belonging to an organization that took political stands. Implications for Planning: The large number of known Houston Jews who are leaders in both the Jewish and general communities represent potential voices for Jewish concerns in the larger community. Synagogue and Denomination Finding: The denominational identification of the known Jewish households in Houston resembles that of American Jewry as a whole: an almost equal split between the Reform and Conservative movements, with under ten percent identifying as Orthodox. Orthodox identification is highest among younger Jews. Implications for Planning: Given the variety of denominational loyalties and relative geographical isolation of Texas Jews from the rest of American Jewry, klal Yisrael is important for the Jewish community. Synagogue Membership Finding: Almost three-quarters of the known Jewish households in Houston reported paying dues to a synagogue during the past year. Most of those who had not paid dues to a synagogue had either been members in the past or were planning to join at some point in the future. Well over half of the households that paid dues to a synagogue (60 percent) reported being affiliated with one of the three largest synagogues in Houston. Implications for Planning: The synagogue is the institution with the widest connection to the known Jewish households in Houston.

22 Page 23 Friendship Networks Finding: Jewish friends are important in Houston: almost all (87 percent) of the respondents reported that at least some of their closest friends were Jewish. After the rabbi, the friendliness of the congregation was the most cited reason for joining a synagogue. Implications for Planning: Taken together, these two findings suggest that Jewish institutional involvement creates friendship networks that in-turn sustain institutional involvement. This connection strengthens the cohesiveness of the known Jewish community in Houston. Being Jewish in Houston Finding: Aside from leading an ethical and moral life, family and community are the most important Jewish connections for known to Houston Jews, but every Jewish connection is important to at least a quarter of the known Houston Jews. Implications for Planning: This is consistent with the overall cohesiveness of the known Jewish community in Houston: being Jewish is important to them in a variety of way, as is being part of the Jewish community. Anti-Semitism Finding: Fighting anti-semitism was central to the Jewish identity of 60 percent of the respondents, and almost a quarter of the respondents reported personally experiencing anti-semitism during the past year. Implications for Planning: Anti-Semitism contributes to the cohesiveness of the Houston Jewish community. The Visibility of Jewish Federation Finding: Almost all (93 percent) of the respondents indicated that they had heard of the Federation. For most, this was a first hand familiarity either through passing the Federation building, reading about it in the Jewish Herald-Voice, or through their family, friends, or other organizational involvement. Just over half had a positive impression of the Federation. Implications for Planning: The Federation has high visibility in the known Jewish community. The Federation leadership might consider capitalizing on that visibility to connect with the large number of known Jewish households that have only a neutral impression of the Federation and what it does. Federation Giving Finding: Federation giving is highest among the known Jewish households with the highest incomes. Among middle and lower income Jews, the Federation and the synagogue are equally popular. Respondents who increased their gifts did so primarily because of an increased awareness of need. Households giving $1,000 or more to the

23 Page 24 Federation indicated that this was their favorite charity. There was a trend in the direction of increases among major donors. Implications for Planning: The emphasis on large donors is the most effective way to raise funds, and the Houston Federation is apparently effective at this. On the other hand, some of the middle income known Jewish households are younger with the potential for both increased earning and giving. Given the impact of need awareness on Federation giving, increased outreach to future large givers is an investment in the future. Federation Giving by Area Finding: The Memorial area has the highest proportion of major donors and the lowest proportion of non-givers. Southwest Houston is characterized by smaller and mid-level donors, with a large proportion of non-givers. The more distant suburbs of North Houston, West Houston, Clear Lake, and Fort Bend have the highest proportions of nongivers. Implications for Planning: Southwest Houston is an area with much potential for new and increased giving. It has the largest concentration of known Jewish households and the large numbers of non-givers and low givers there suggest much room for growth, particularly using in-person contacts to take advantage of the Jewish concentrations in this area. West Houston, with a much smaller and more distant known Jewish population is another area to think about for campaign outreach. The Importance of Local Needs Finding: Overall, the donors who privilege local needs outnumber those who privilege Israel by a factor of four-to-one. The largest donors primarily want an even balance between local needs and the needs of Israel, but those who have a preference emphasize local needs far more than Israel. Implications for Planning: The old saying that Federations raise money on the back of Israel, does not apply to Houston. The findings of this study should be used to make potential donors more aware of local needs in the Jewish community.

24 Page 25 Table of Contents Federation Cover Letter... 3 Dr. Stephen Klineberg Preface... 5 Acknowledgements... 6 Demographic Study Committee... 7 Partnering Agencies... 8 Methodology... 9 Figure 1 - Houston analysis areas Study Area ZIP5 Definitions (sorted by Study Area) Study Area ZIP5 Definitions (sorted by ZIP5) Implications Age and Gender Distribution: Jewish Residential Concentrations: Jewish Children: Family Cycle Income Education Generation Place of Birth Patterns of Migration to Houston Decade of Migration Plans to Move Use of Services Services for Seniors Pre-School Public School Jewish Education Jewish Camping Youth Groups Adult Jewish Education and Cultural Activities Intermarriage Children of Intermarriage Jewish Organizations Jewish Organizational Associations by Area Jewish Community Center Houston Jews are Communal Leaders Synagogue and Denomination Synagogue Membership Friendship Networks Being Jewish in Houston Anti-Semitism... 23

25 Page 26 The Visibility of Jewish Federation Federation Giving Federation Giving by Area The Importance of Local Needs Table of Contents Population Characteristics and Distribution Age and Gender Distribution Figure 2 Age by gender of known Jewish persons Table Jewish persons by age and gender Geographical distribution Table Percent of all Jewish persons by age and by greater Houston study areas Table Percent of Jewish persons by greater Houston study areas and by age Table Persons by age by gender by Houston area Household Characteristics Table Average number of persons in Jewish households by denomination38 Table Percent of Persons by Household Composition Table Percent Household composition type by Area Table Percent of household type by household respondent age Household Income and Education Table Percent of Jewish households by 2000 household income by area.. 41 Figure 3 Household income in Education Occupations Table Total percent of occupations by gender Occupational category Table Total percent of occupations by area Migration Table Jewish known persons by generation in the US Generation in US Table Percent by state of birth Table

26 Page 27 Average number of years lived in Houston by age Figure 4 Decade of Jewish migration to Houston Table Respondents by percent giving reason for move Table Percent of all movers to Houston Table Total percent of previous area of residence in Houston by current area of residence of Houston movers Use of Services Table Average likelihood of use of proposed services Need for social services in the past year Table Percent of known Jewish household needing social service in past year Percent Table Percent of Houston by known Jewish households requiring specific social service by area Table Relative proportional score of Houston Jewish known household social service need by area Table Relative pronounced social need rank of Houston areas Table Percent preference for Jewish social services by consumers by income Table Percent reason household choosing not to use Jewish agency service Table Percent respondents with elderly dependents in Houston Table Percent of respondents giving childcare choice reason Table Percent of the respondents children members of a specific Jewish youth group Adult Jewish Education Table Percent respondents engaged in personal Jewish education in the past year Table Percent how respondent initially heard or learned about Jewish event or gathering Marriage and Intermarriage... 63

27 Page 28 Table Percent of married adult Jews by type of Jewish marriage and by gender Figure 5 Percent of married Jews by marital status and age Table Percent married households by Houston area and by Jewish marital status Table Children in intermarried households by area ratio and percent of total children Table Percent households by denominational affiliation and Jewish marital status Table Percent respondent s parent's Jewish denomination by current Jewish marital status Affiliation Table Percent respondents by mentions of Jewish groups belonged to by gender Table Percent respondents by mentions of Jewish groups belonged to by age Table Percent respondents by mentions of Jewish groups belonged to by area Table Number of different Jewish groups and organizations mentioned by respondent by area of Houston Table Respondents reasons for not joining JCC Organizational Affiliation Synagogue Membership Table How frequently do you attend synagogue services? Table Synagogue attendance by denominational affiliation Table Frequency of synagogue attendance by gender Table Total percent known Jewish persons by current household Jewish denomination and age Table Jewish ethnicity in Houston Table Percent households by synagogue membership... 77

28 Page 29 Motivations For Choosing A Synagogue Table Reasons for joining or not joining a synagogue Jewish Attitudes Table Percent of respondents by agreement with Jewish attitudes Table What being a Jew meant for respondents DK\NR Table Respondents feeling part of the Jewish community Table Institutions contributed to respondent feeling that are part of a Jewish community Table Percent of type of anti-semitism experienced in last five years in Houston Type of anti-semitism experienced Table Percent respondents engaged in Jewish behaviors Philanthropy Table Percent of responses on seeing or hearing about Jewish Federation 85 Table Percent respondents impression of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston Table Organizations or charities gave money last year 1rst response categories Table Percent of all mentions by respondents of charities or organizations they have given to Table Percent giving mentions by household income categories Table Favorite charity among those money contributed to last year Table Percent favorite charity by giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in Contact with the Jewish Federation Donor Table Percent of stated contribution in Table Reasons given for an increase of Federation gift Table Reasons given for a decrease of Federation gift... 91

29 Page 30 Table Reasons given for Federation gift remaining the same Table Percent of reasons given by respondents for not contributing to Federation in Table Percent stated giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by stated giving trend over past 3 years Table Percent stated giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by area Table Percent stated giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by area Table Giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by type of contact Table Percent type of contact with Jewish Federation by area Table Percent Formal or personal contact with Jewish Federation by Household Income Table Percent major reason for not giving to Federation by household income Table Percent of respondents by generation in the US by giving levels to the Jewish Federation in General Philanthropic Preferences Table Did your household contribute more to Jewish charities or non- Jewish charities Table Percent total charitable giving by Jewish Federation giving in Table Consideration important in giving choice by total donation level Table Percent saying Jewish Federation allocation preference by Jewish Federation giving level PRIZM Analysis Use of PRIZM Neighborhood typing Geographical Distribution by Social Type Table Percent Composition of Study Areas by Social Type Table Percent Composition of Social Types by Study Area Respondents103

30 Page 31 Indexing Table Owns Home by Social Type Demographics and Internet Behavior Table Lives in Multifamily Housing Stock Table Has Regular Access to Internet Table Logs On Internet at Least 1X per Day Table Purchased a Product over the Internet Distribution of Children Table Household has at Least one Child in the Home Table Age Distribution of Children by Social Type Jewish Education Table Respondents' Early Jewish Education Table Respondents' Early Jewish Education Extended Past 13 Years of Age Table Providing One's Children a Jewish Education is Very Impt Table Participated in Jewish Studies or Lectures (last 3 years) Marital Status and Parents Table Marital Status by Social Type Table 91a Number of Parents Born in USA Table Elder Dependent Living in Houston Household Incomes and Educational Attainment, Table Attained at Least a Bachelors Degree Table Distribution of Household Income by Social Type Table Self-Perception of Financial Security Table Self-Perception of Health versus Peers Political Behaviors Table Political Activism

31 Page 32 Jewish Attitudes Table Household Member has Visited Israel Table Extremely to Very Emotionally Attached to Israel Table Agree: Jews in Israel and USA Share Common Fate Table Personally Experienced Anti-Semitism in last 5 Years Table All or Most of Friends / Social Acquaintances are Jewish Table Type of Anti-Semitism Experienced in Last 5 Years Table Strongly Agree / Agree Anti-Semitism is a Problem Synagogue Membership and Denominational Affinity Table Denominational Membership by Social Type Table Parents Denominational Membership by Social Type Table Currently Dues Paying Member of a Synagogue Table Family Belonged to Synagogue as a Child Jewish Observances Table Light Sabbath Candles on Friday Night Table Held or Attended Passover Seder Last Year Table Do Not Keep a Kosher Home Table Light Hanukkah Candles at Least One Night Table Personally Fasted Last Yom Kippur Table Had a Christmas Tree Last Year Table Have a Mezuzah on Front Door Affiliation Table Belong to JCC Table Household Member has Attended JCC Program Table Reasons for Not Joining the JCC

32 Page 33 Table Currently Belong to a Health Club Philanthropy Table Has Seen or Heard of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston Table Impression of the Houston Jewish Federation Table Contact by Jewish Federation Table Contributions to the Jewish Federation Table How Should Fedn Funds be Allocated Locally / Israel? Table Pct Contributing Last Year to Jewish Federation by Gift Level Table Most Frequently Cited Organizations Receiving Donations Table Total Contributions Last Year Excluding Dues, Tuition, Israel Bonds Table Distribution of Donations Table Supporting Jewish Organization is Very Impt Part of Jewishness. 122

33 Page 34 Population Characteristics and Distribution From a list collated from over 35 Houston Jewish organizations, 801 randomly chosen households with at least one person who identified as Jewish through religion, parentage or upbringing were interviewed during September 2001 through November 2001 for the Houston Jewish Community Study. The methodology of this study only enables the description of characteristics of those households somehow formally associated by being listed and contacted from the organizational lists. These associated households will be referred to in the following as the community, Demographic studies often begin with an estimate of a community s population. This study was not designed to create an estimate of the Jewish population of the greater Houston area (the reader is directed to Prof Stephen Klineberg s remarks on population estimates at the beginning of this study). Houston s Jewish population has been variously estimated in past as being comprised of around forty thousand Jewish persons. The initiators of this study felt that it was vital to discern the characteristics of the Jewish community that had some contact, even the most minimal of contact, which would make them known to the institutions of the Houston Jewish community. This study describes that population of known Jews, who from other community studies may constitute fifty to seventy-five percent of a community s Jews. Age and Gender Distribution The following chart describes the known Jewish population of Houston as having the familiar age bulge created by the post WWII baby boom and a bit over thirty years later, their children. The bulges of these two generations are farther away than they are in the general population, which tends to marry and have children at earlier stages. Jewish baby-boomers often have children in their households long after their non-jewish neighbors have emptied their nests of their children. For example, this difference in childbearing patterns may be a factor in differences in perceptions and attitudes between the Jewish and general non-jewish community regarding topics such as the availability and quality of schooling in a community.

34 Page 35 Figure 2 Age by gender of known Jewish persons 85 and over under 1 Female Male

35 Page 36 Table 1. Jewish persons by age and gender Gender Age Category Male Female Total under and over Total Increasing service demands are expected. If the above age distribution is reflective of the unknown Jewish community, the graying of the community will continue as babyboomers will live longer than their parents. Many of the Jewish persons not currently known to the Houston Jewish community may become dependent or needy of services and it is likely that Jews currently unknown to the institutions of the Jewish community will emerge from their lack of contact with the organized Jewish community over the next two decades. This may result in a strain on the existing Jewish services as they ramp up to serve this emerging elderly population. Geographical distribution From the following two tables we can see the largest number of known Jews, over a third, reside in the Southwest area of Houston, therefore it has the largest number of all age groups within that area. The character of an area is determined not only by the absolute number of persons, but also their proportion within that area.

36 Page 37 Table 2. Percent of all Jewish persons by age and by greater Houston study areas Study Area Age Categories Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total under and over Total Enclaves of young and elderly. Children under 18 are relatively under-represented in the Memorial area and over-represented in the North and Ft. Bend areas; conversely the elderly are over-represented in the same areas. Table 3. Percent of Jewish persons by greater Houston study areas and by age Study Area Age Categories Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Total under and over Total More females in some age groups. The following table demonstrates that there are more females than males aged 30 to 64 in Houston, especially in the North, Southwest and Clear Lake areas. While there are more males than females under age 18, it is expected that migration will even out this gender inequality in as this group ages.

37 Page 38 Table 4. Persons by age by gender by Houston area Study area Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total Age Category Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female under and over Total Household Characteristics Household size varies by Jewish denomination. Jewish households in Houston vary in the average number of persons found in a Jewish households with Orthodox households having one more person than Jewish households who self-identify with the Conservative Jewish denomination. When only Jewish persons in the household are taken into account, the average number of persons in a Houston Jewish household is 2.21, a household size that is in the same range of other recent Jewish community surveys. Table 5. Average number of persons in Jewish households by denomination Jewish denomination Person per household Orthodox 3.4 Conservative 2.4 Reform 2.3 Reconstructionist 2.2 Non-denominational 2.1 Total 2.4 Most Houston Jews live in a household with children under 18. The greatest percentage, 52 percent, of persons live in a married couple with minor children household followed by 27 percent of persons living as part of a married couple with no children in the household with just a few married couples having children 18 and older living with them. The remaining 20 percent of persons in the community live in single-parent households, 4 percent, single persons living alone, 10 percent, or share housing with other single persons, 6 percent. Table 6.

38 Page 39 Percent of Persons by Household Composition Household composition type Percent One Person 10.2 Single Persons (e.g., roommates) 6.2 Married Couple 26.9 Married Couple with Children < Married Couple with Children > Single Parents 4.0 Total 100 When the listed Houston Jewish community is examined by household rather than persons living in those households we find that the proportion changes as a reflection of the fact that one person may constitute a household or many persons may constitute a household. The following table paints a picture that shows married couples without children are one of the most common Jewish household types in Houston. By looking at the married households by age of the respondent in Table 8.Table 8 it is possible to discern that there are very few married couple only household respondents under age 44 (6.4 percent); most of these married couples are at the life stage where, if there were children, the children have moved out. It can be expected that in the next decade the aging married couple household will become the predominant listed Jewish Houston household type. Eventually as the listed Jewish community ages it may see a transition to one-person households becoming the predominant household type, as it is now in the central Houston area (see Table 7). Table 7. Percent Household composition type by Area Household composition type Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Total One Person Single Persons Married Couple Married Couple with Children < Married Couple with Children > Single Parents Total

39 Page 40 Table 8. Percent of household type by household respondent age Age Categories Household composition type and over Total One Person Single Persons Married Couple Married Couple with Children < Married Couple with Children > Single Parents Total Gay or Lesbian or Transgender Jewish households. Whenever respondents reported that they were never married and/or lived with a partner, they were asked whether they considered themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Of these, 11 percent of Jewish never married and/or living with a partner respondents answered to the affirmative. The gay or lesbian or transgender Jewish households constitute approximately 1.1 percent of the total Houston Jewish households. The largest concentration, 39 percent, of Jewish gay, lesbian or transgender persons who have made themselves known to the Jewish community live in the Central City area of Houston and another 27 percent live in the Southwest area. Household Income and Education One in twelve known Houston Jewish households contacted by this survey reported that the household income in 2000 was $250,000 or greater. Equal concentrations of these high income households live in the Central City and Memorial area of Houston, another significant concentration is in Southwest Houston. Past research indicates affluent households are more likely to be known to Jewish communal institutions, so therefore it is likely that the sample in this study is somewhat biased towards higher income households. Lower income households in the known Jewish community are concentrated in the Southwest and Central City Houston areas.

40 Page 41 Table 9. Percent of Jewish households by 2000 household income by area Study area Under $25,000 Household Income Categories $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 to less than less than less than $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 OVER $250,000 Total Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total Incomes range widely. Known Jewish households with annual incomes of below $10,000 represented 4 percent of the total households and 13 percent report earning over $200,000 a year. The largest group, 21 percent, had incomes between $50,000 and $75,000. Figure 3 Household income in % 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Under $5,000 $5,000 to less than $10,000 Household Income in 2000 $10,000 to less than $25,000 $25,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $75,000 $75,000 to less than $100,000 $150,000 to less than $200,000 $100,000 to less than $150,000 $200,000 to $250,000 OVER $250,000

41 Page 42 Education Houston s listed Jews are highly educated, with 80 percent of Jewish adults having education beyond high school and 37 percent having attained advanced degrees after their baccalaureate degree. Occupations Over half, 57 percent, of the known Jewish community adults are employed, almost a quarter of Jewish adults are retired and another tenth are homemakers and one-in-twenty Jewish adults are currently students. At the time of the survey, one percent of known Jewish adults were unemployed and seeking work. Over a quarter, 27 percent, of working adults reported that they were self-employed. Most Jewish persons work in private industry, 79 percent, and the rest work for nonprofits, 13 percent, and government, 9 percent. The majority, 58 percent, of known Jewish workers are employed in occupations with high levels of training known as professional, technical and kindred occupations. These professional occupations have a relatively high proportion of women, 56 percent, versus 44 percent males. These Jewish women are especially concentrated as teachers, computer specialists, nurses, therapists and less so in engineering and the medical and legal professions in Houston. The most common occupation in the known Jewish community in Houston is managerial and administrative (which includes business owners) at 19 percent. Sales workers make up the next largest occupation at 14 percent. Doctors and dentists and related practitioners are 11 percent with engineers following at 8 percent. Other occupations with significant representation are teachers, both at the elementary and high school level and teachers at the academic level of colleges and universities, as well as lawyers and judges, clerical workers, writers, artists, entertainers and computer specialists.

42 Page 43 Table 10. Total percent of occupations by gender Occupational category Male Female Total Architects Computer specialists Engineers Lawyers and judges Librarians, archivists and curators Life and Physical Scientists Physicians, dentists and related practitioners Nurses, dietitians and therapists Health technologists and technicians Religious workers Social scientists Social and recreation workers Teachers, college and university Teachers, except College and University Engineering and science technicians Technicians, except health, and engineering and science Writer, artists and entertainers Managers and administrators Sales worker Clerical and kindred worker Craftsmen and kindred worker Operatives, except transport Transport equipment operatives Laborers, except farm Service workers, excluding Private household Total Areas having large numbers of professionals are Southwest, Central City and West Houston followed by the Ft. Bend, Memorial and North areas.

43 Page 44 Table 11. Total percent of occupations by area Central City Study area Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total Memorial North West Southwest Professional, technical Managers and administrators Sales worker Clerical Craftsmen Operatives Laborers Service workers Total

44 Page 45 Migration On the move. Jewish community association and communal characteristics can often be better understood when looked at through the prism of migration. For many in the Jewish community the immigration experience is a personal one, which they, their parent or grandparents have experienced. As seen in the philanthropy and affiliation sections, the immigrant experience has relevance in some ways to those Jewish behaviors. More recent domestic migration experience and plans have a more immediate impact on the Houston Jewish community in terms of the size and distribution within the community. First generation Americans are persons who were born outside the US and who have immigrated. Second generation Americans are persons born in the US, but their parents were born abroad. Third generation Americans are US born persons with US born parents, while their grandparents were born abroad. Fourth generation Americans are US born persons with US born parents, and US born grandparents. Off the boat. One-seventh, 14 percent, of Houston s known Jews were born abroad. Just over a third, 35 percent, were born in the US but have the immigrant experience indirectly through their parents or grandparents and the majority of Houston s known Jews never had a member of their immediate family who came from another country. Table 12. Jewish known persons by generation in the US Generation in US Percent 1st Generation nd Generation rd Generation rth Generation 50.8 Total 100 Texas born and bred. The majority, 52 percent, of Houston s known Jews are Texas born. The US East Coast supplies another quarter, 25 percent, (with New York being the primary source); the Midwest supplies about another 10 percent among the top sending states; the West s greatest sending state is California, at only 2 percent. Other research shows Texas is a sending state to the West coast states, so there is evidence leading one to believe that Texas may be a way-station for some on the migration to the West just as New York may be a way station for some to Texas.

45 Page 46 Table 13. Percent by state of birth State of birth Percent Texas 52.2 New York 17.9 Pennsylvania 3.5 Illinois 3.0 Ohio 2.7 New Jersey 2.2 California 1.8 Louisiana 1.8 Massachusetts 1.8 Missouri 1.6 Other US 11.4 Total 100 Another indicator of rootedness in Houston is that 10 percent of this study s adult respondents have lived all their lives in Houston. The average number of years lived in Houston for those not born in Houston was 27 years. For seniors the average number of years lived in Houston was 34 years. Table 14. Average number of years lived in Houston by age Age categories Years and over 34 Total 27 Boom and bust. Many who moved to Houston have done so recently. Twelve percent of those moving to Houston did in 2000 or later. Migration to the Jewish community of Houston grew in the 1960s and peaked in the 1970s a time of economic prosperity in the region. Migration declined in the 1980s and the 1990s and only has recently picked up. Whether the Jewish migrants of 2000 and later remain in Houston will be borne out in the future.

46 Page 47 Figure 4 Decade of Jewish migration to Houston Decade of Jew ish migration to Houston When questioned as to the reason for moving, the most common reason cited by respondents for moving was because of their work or their spouse (25 percent). Over one tenth, 13 percent of the movers gave reasons of wanting to be closer to Jewish institutions and where more Jews lived.

47 Page 48 Table 15. Respondents by percent giving reason for move Reason for move Percent Moved because of work of respondent 16.8 Bigger house or bigger yard 16.0 Better schools for children in Houston area 13.4 To be closer to Jewish institutions such as schools, synagogue 11.6 Affordability or cost of housing 9.4 Moved because of work of spouse 7.7 Overall quality of life in Houston area 6.9 To be in area where more Jews live 4.2 Other environmental considerations such as being near park 3.3 To be closer to my children 2.9 Convenient to shopping businesses, or downtown 2.9 Change in marital status [i.e. Got Divorced, separated, 2.9 Came here for education or training 2.8 Smaller house 2.8 To be closer to friends 2.3 Less crime 2.1 To be closer to my parents 2.1 Born or grew up here 1.5 Family got larger 1.0 Proximity to medical care 0.9 Convenient to bike path or public transportation 0.8 Retirement 0.4 Better or nicer neighborhood 0.4 Ethnic change 0.4 Family got smaller 0.4 Previous area was too crowded 0.4 Immigrated 0.3 To be closer to spouse s or partner s children 0.2 To be closer to spouse s or partner s parents 0.1 Other 2.8 DK/NR 1.7 Places moved from. Most movers to the Houston area came from elsewhere in Texas at 31 percent followed by New York and New Jersey for another 19 percent and California with a much smaller 4 percent. One percent of movers to Houston were from Canada. The other foreign countries from which respondents moved to Houston were Israel, Russia and South American these countries together constituted another 6 percent of movers to Houston. Other locales contributed to Houston s Jewish population to a lesser extent.

48 Page 49 Table 16. Percent of all movers to Houston US & Canada Valid Percent Texas 31 New York 14 New Jersey 5 California 4 Louisiana 4 Pennsylvania 3 Maryland 2 Massachusetts 2 Ohio 2 Florida 2 Michigan 2 Virginia 1 Canada 1 Other US 9 Most moves, when they occur, do so within Houston. Almost one-fifth, 18 percent, of respondents who had moved reported doing so from one domicile to another within the Southwest Houston area. The Central City, West and Memorial areas were also popular areas of new settlement by previous Southwest area dwellers. The most popular local area to have been from is other. It seems that much of the movement was from places within the Houston periphery to the areas with greater Jewish density. A common strategy is to first settle somewhere affordable and later move to areas with a higher Jewish concentration. Table 17. Total percent of previous area of residence in Houston by current area of residence of Houston movers Area of current residence Previous residence area in Houston Central City Clear Memorial North West Southwest Lake Ft. Bend Other Total Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total

49 Page 50 Don t want to move. The Houston Jewish known community is stable with about four out of five households, 82 percent, not planning to move and staying in the same neighborhood in the next 3 years. The six percent that plan on moving expect to migrate to another neighborhood in Houston. A minority, 4 percent. plan to move to another state while another 1 percent see themselves in another country within 3 years. Decisions decisions Of those who plan to move within Houston in the next three years, one-in-ten respondents, 9 percent, singled out Bellaire as the targeted area of migration. The Memorial and Meyerland were the next most popular targeted neighborhoods at 3 percent each. The greatest percentage of those with plans to move, 50 percent, said that they did not yet know where they intend to move.

50 Page 51 Use of Services Respondents were questioned about a number of new service concepts through this survey, and rated the likelihood of a household member using the potential services in the coming three years. The scale used was: 1. Not at all likely to use 2. Only a little likely to use 3. Somewhat likely to use 4. Very likely to use Almost 85 percent of the proposed services received a response indicating little likelihood that they would be used especially with respect to not using Jewish mediation services. Respondents with children asked about parenting workshops indicated they were most likely to use this type of service. Table 18. Average likelihood of use of proposed services 1=not likely at all thru 4=very likely to use Proposed services Mean Mode Std Deviation College age social gatherings Jewish genetic testing services Day care for the elderly Jewish mediation services Assisted living services for the elderly Parenting workshops Need for social services in the past year Respondents in the known Jewish community were asked if anyone in the household required a specific social service in the past year. The most common social service needed was marital, family or individual counseling, where one in every six known households reported needing this social service. One household may have answered in the affirmative to more than one social service, as there are many households who needed no social service in the past years. Households with specific compositions such as having persons age 65 and over or children under 18 were asked about social services more tailored to them. Seven percent of households with seniors reported needing transportation services in the past year. Only one percent of households with seniors required home delivered meals or meal sites, but one-in-twenty-five, 4 percent, of households with seniors was in need of senior residential or skilled nursing care in the past year.

51 Page 52 Table 19. Percent of known Jewish household needing social service in past year Percent Social Service Marital, family, or individual counseling 16.3 Help in finding a job or choosing an occupation 8.0 Assistance with alcohol or drug abuse 0.9 Emergency financial assistance 1.8 Transportation for the elderly* 6.5 Home delivered meals or meal sites for seniors 1.1 Senior residential housing, residential care or skilled nursing facility 4.0 Elder financial management, counseling and timely bill paying* 0.7 Elder sitter or companion care or help in shopping* 3.6 Burial or mortuary services 3.8 Assistance for children with problems* 11.5 *households with seniors or children Where is the need. The following table describes the percent of total Jewish households in the listed community needing a particular social service in the study areas of Houston. Of the 16 percent of households needing marital and individual counseling, 6 percent, or over a third, live on the Southwest Houston area. Therefore in terms of the market for this social service, the Southwest area can be termed a robust source of clients. Later in this section it will be shown that the Southwest area households actually are somewhat proportionally less in need of this service than, for example, the Central City area, though there is high need in the different areas for marital, family, or individual counseling.

52 Page 53 Table 20. Percent of Houston by known Jewish households requiring specific social service by area Social service Marital, family, or individual counseling Help in finding a job or choosing an occupation Assistance with alcohol or drug abuse Emergency financial assistance Transportation for the elderly Home delivered meals or meal sites for seniors Senior Residential housing, residential care or skilled nursing facility Elder financial management, counseling and timely bill paying Elder sitter or companion care or help in shopping Burial or mortuary services Assistance for children with problems Need any service Houston area Central South City North Memorial West west Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Total Where does it hurt. A scoring system based on the service need of Houston study areas relative to the total rate of need for a particular social service by all Jewish known households was developed. The Central City respondents indicated a more pronounced need than those in other study areas for marital, family or individual counseling, emergency financial assistance services and the for burial and mortuary services in the

53 Page 54 past year. The Jewish households in the North area related greater need for services for the elderly such as transportation, home delivered meals or meal sites, senior housing, elder companions. The North, along with the Ft. Bend area shows a pronounced need for assistance for children with problems and so on with the other areas. Table 21. Relative proportional score of Houston Jewish known household social service need by area [In parentheses () less pronounced reported need= (1), (0) < > 0, 1, 2 = greater pronounced reported need] Area Central City South west Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Social service North Memorial West Marital, family, or individual counseling 1 (0) (0) 0 (0) 0 1 (1) Help in finding a job or choosing an occupation (1) (1) (0) 1 (0) 1 1 (1) Assistance with alcohol or drug abuse (1) (1) (1) 1 1 (1) 1 (1) Emergency financial assistance 1 (1) 1 1 (1) (1) 1 (1) Transportation for the elderly (1) 1 (1) (1) 1 (1) 1 1 Home delivered meals or meal sites (1) 2 (1) 1 (1) (1) (1) (1) for seniors Senior Residential housing, residential care or skilled nursing facility (1) 1 (1) 1 1 (1) (1) 1 Elder financial management, counseling and timely bill paying (1) (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) (1) (1) Elder sitter or companion care or help in shopping (1) (1) (1) (1) 1 Burial or mortuary services 1 (1) 1 (1) (0) 1 (1) (1) Assistance for children with problems (0) 1 (0) (1) (1) (1) 1 1 Where the loudest sighs come from. The West Houston area ranked the highest in the number of different services with pronounced needs, with seven social service areas being more pronounced than the general ongoing need in the listed Jewish community over the past year. The relatively lower roar for ongoing need of social services is coming from households in the Central City and Clear Lake study areas.

54 Page 55 Table 22. Relative pronounced social need rank of Houston areas Number of Services with rank Area pronounced needs 1 West 7 2 Ft. Bend 6 3 North 5 4 Memorial 4 5 Southwest 4 6 Other 4 7 Central City 3 8 Clear Lake 3 So, were you helped? About 83 percent of those households who needed a social service in the past year reported that they received help. Over a fourth, 26 percent, of the time social services were received by listed Jewish households provided by a Jewish agency. In the vast majority of cases, 74 percent, the Jewish household received their services from a non-jewish source. The majority, 65 percent, of the services received from a Jewish agency emanated from the Jewish Family Service, followed by 7 percent received from a rabbi or synagogue, or the Levi Funeral Home (6 percent), or the Jewish Community Center (4 percent). Seven Acres/Wolf Center Day assisted Living was mentioned in 2 percent of the Jewish services and other Jewish sources constituted another 13 percent. A full 3 percent did not know which Jewish agency provided them with service. Even if it were free. Respondents using non-jewish social services were asked if they would have preferred Jewish services. A third, 35 percent said that they would prefer Jewish services, another third, 28 percent said that it didn t make a difference with an additional 4 percent saying they didn t know and the remaining third, 33 percent said that their preference was a non-jewish social service. Happily, those who are most reliant on Jewish social services because of their lower income also prefer to receive services from a Jewish agency. Unhappily, those who can buy the social services somewhere outside the Jewish agency sphere, often prefer to.

55 Page 56 Table 23. Percent preference for Jewish social services by consumers by income Household Income Categories $50,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 to less than $250,000 If quality and cost were equal would have preferred Jewish Under $25,000 $25,000 to less than $50,000 Yes No Doesn t make any difference DK\NR Total OVER $250,000 Its unavailable now. Even when a Jewish service was desired, unavailability of service was cited 42 percent of the time as the reason for not using a Jewish agency service. Another 27 percent of the time the respondent did not know if a suitable service offering was available from a Jewish agency. About one in seven, 15 percent, cited a negative with regard to the use of Jewish social services such as being too costly, previous bad experience, poor quality or reputation or too long of a wait for service. Table 24. Percent reason household choosing not to use Jewish agency service Why was a service from a Jewish agency not used service unavailable for other reasons 36 didn t know it existed 27 geographically unavailable 6 too costly 6 previous bad experience 2 poor quality or reputation 6 wait for service too long (waiting list too long) 1 DK\NR 17 Total 100 Informal Jewish service networks. A tenth of the survey respondents stated that they have an elderly relative in Houston who depends upon them for their care. This situation exists disproportionately for households in the Ft. Bend, North, West areas of Houston.

56 Page 57 Table 25. Percent respondents with elderly dependents in Houston Do you have an elderly relative in Houston who, in any way depends upon you for their care? Elderly dependent Study area Yes No Total Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total

57 Page 58 Jewish Education Jewish education may be formal or informal and the educated may include children or adults. The educational career of a child starts at under age 5 and among the listed Jewish households in Houston, almost two-thirds, 63 percent, of these age 5 and under children are attending pre-school or day care. Over one third, 37 percent, not attending formal pre-school/day care are for the most part being taken care of at home by the child s mother (67 percent) or a nanny/maid (25 percent) or by a grandparent (8 percent). When a pre-school or day care is used, Jewish groups provide care for 72 percent of those children, and therefore 45 percent of all known Jewish children age 5 and under are currently in Jewish pre-school and day care. For the children not in Jewish pre-schools and day care, most (83 percent) had considered a Jewish setting for the child. The primary consideration for the greatest number of parents was the location or distance and the quality of the childcare. Education and Jewish content were a close second. Table 26. Percent of respondents giving childcare choice reason Reason for choosing type of childcare Percent Location or distance 23 Quality of care 23 Educational content 20 Jewish content 20 Prefer the care of family members 13 Reliability 10 Cost 10 Prefer in home care 10 Emotional Content 7 Hours of care availability 3 Feeling of Safety 3 DK\NR 3 (note: sum of table exceeds 100 from multiple responses) Big kids school. Most (63 percent) of school age children age 5 to age 18 are enrolled in Houston public schools, 12 percent were learning in non-jewish private schools and almost a quarter, 24 percent, were enrolled in Jewish day school. Of all the children under age 18, almost ninety percent (87 percent) were at one time enrolled in some type of formal Jewish education including almost half the children enrolled currently in formal Jewish educational programs (after-school/weekend/regular day-school). Formal Jewish education for many children stops after Bar/Bat Mitzvah and among children in the listed community 65 percent didn t wait until age 14 to stop their Jewish education, with only a third, 35 percent, continued their Jewish education after age 13.

58 Page 59 Only 16 percent of the parents responded that they would enroll their child in Jewish education some time in the future, so the majority of children who have ceased their Jewish education do so with the approval of their parents. Of the three-quarters, 76 percent, of children not enrolled in Jewish day school, a quarter, 24 percent, of their parents cited as one reason the distance or location of the Jewish day school; forty percent of the parents reasoned that their child is too old to switch or they are committed to public schooling; nine percent of respondents gave reason such as parochialism, that there was not enough ethnic diversity and the environment was too religious for them. Fourteen percent cited the costs of Jewish day school as an impediment. With regard to Jewish high school education, less than a fifth, 17 percent, said that they plan to enroll their child in Jewish day high school. Table 27. Percent respondents mentioning particular reasons for not enrolling child in Jewish day school Percent Distance or location 24.1 Child is too old to switch schools 21.9 Committed to public education 19.7 Too expensive 12.4 Not enough ethnic diversity in Jewish day schools 5.1 Too religious an environment 3.6 Never considered it 2.9 We re intermarried 2.9 Academic weakness of Jewish day schools 2.2 Switching schools would be too disruptive 2.2 Not satisfied with school 2.2 Not worth the cost 1.5 Wouldn t fit in socially 1.5 Not aware of Jewish day schools in Houston 0.7 Child s friends go elsewhere 0.7 Child\children has special needs 0.7 Other 3.6 DK\NR 1.5 Hi ho off to camp we go. Much of effective Jewish informal education takes place within the sphere of Jewish camping. Summer camping is popular with the study s households with 78 percent having attended a summer camp. The majority of children, 55 percent, last attended an overnight summer camp. Two thirds of the children went to a summer camp organized by a Jewish organization. Of those sending their children to a summer camp organized by a non-jewish organization, 50 percent said that they would prefer a Jewish camp if cost, quality and other factors were equal. Over a third, 37 percent, of the children of respondents are members of a Jewish youth group. BBYO is the most popular with 24 percent of Jewish known youth who affine with a Jewish youth group; the two next popular are Jewish denominationally associated

59 Page 60 youth movements (NCSY and USY) which have 40 percent of the associated youth; followed by the non-denominational Young Judea at 10 percent and the Jewish Community Center at 7 percent. Table 28. Percent of the respondents children members of a specific Jewish youth group Which youth movement? Valid Percent BBYO [Bnei Brith Youth Organization] 24 NCSY [National Conference of Synagogue Youth] 20 USY [United Synagogue Youth] 20 Young Judea 10 Jewish Community Center [JCC] 7 Kadima 5 Other temple group 5 Tzivos Hashem 2 DK/NR 5 Other 2 Total 100 Another form of informal Jewish education is travel to Israel. The majority, 60 percent, of listed Jewish households in Houston had a member who has visited Israel. The majority, 62 percent, of these trips were described as self-organized, and another 37 percent were with an organized Jewish group. The Jewish Federation organized 11 percent of the trips and synagogues organized 9 percent of the reported Israel trips. Over a third, 37 percent, of all listed Jewish households said that they probably or definitely plan to visit Israel in the next three years. Adult Jewish Education Many adults engaged in personal Jewish education in the past year, much of it through reading. The most commonly reported education medium was regularly following the news about Jewish topics and Israel (92 percent); 89 percent reported reading Jewish newspapers and publications; and 63 percent read a book because of its Jewish content. Over half, 53 percent, report reading a Jewish publication at least once a week. Other popular sources for about half the respondents were visiting museums because of Jewish exhibits, renting videos with Jewish content and visiting websites with Jewish content.

60 Page 61 Table 29. Percent respondents engaged in personal Jewish education in the past year Jewish personal education Yes No DK\NR Total Regularly follow news about Jewish topics, including Israel? Read a Jewish newspaper, magazine, or other publication? Other than the Bible, did you read a book, because it had Jewish content? Visit a museum because it had a Jewish exhibit? See a movie or rent any video because it had Jewish content? Visited an Internet website because it had Jewish content? Attend a theater, music, or dance program because it had Jewish content? Purchase for your own use an audio tape, CD, or record because it contained Participate in a retreat or all day program with Jewish content? Use a CD-ROM or other computer software because it had Jewish content? Almost half, 49 percent, of respondents participated in Jewish Studies courses, Jewish lecture series or Jewish studies programs in the past 3 years. Of those who participated, most, 69 percent, report investing 10 or more evenings in the past three years to these Jewish Studies courses, Jewish lecture series or Jewish studies programs. When asked about the most recent occasion that they attended a Jewish event or Jewish gathering, the respondents were asked how they initially heard or learned about the event. Friends and relatives and neighbors were the most common way at an aggregate 31 percent, followed by Jewish newspaper or newsletter at 20 percent and then by being plugged in through attendance or membership at the source of the program or a synagogue and JCC for an aggregate 16 percent. Mail, telephone, and websites accounted for 14 percent of how respondents initially heard of a Jewish educational event or activity.

61 Page 62 Table 30. Percent how respondent initially heard or learned about Jewish event or gathering Source of notice Percent friends 19.4 Newspaper, Jewish 14.2 mail 11.2 relatives 9.7 Through attendance or membership 8.2 Newsletter 6.0 Synagogue 6.0 JCC 2.2 neighbors Television 1.5 telephone 0.7 Internet website 0.7 OTHER 3.7 DK\NR 13.4 Total 100

62 Page 63 Marriage and Intermarriage The known Jewish community of Houston s marriage market seems to give Jewish males the advantage with Jewish females age 18 to 64 outnumbering Jewish males by 15 percent or for every nine women there are eight men in this age category. As we have seen earlier the most common type of listed Jewish Houston household is a married couple household with/without children. The large majority of Jewish adults in Houston, 72 percent, are married; 8 percent are divorced; 9 percent are widowed; and another 11 percent have never married. Interestingly, in spite of the marriage market advantage of males, slightly more females report being married, 37 percent to the males 35 percent and never married known Jewish males outnumber known Jewish females by factor of 3 to 2. Whether this is similar to the relationship within the unknown Jewish population would require further survey. The majority, 82 percent, of married born Jews in Houston are married to other born Jews and another 8 percent of Jewish persons are in conversionary marriages, so that only 10 percent of Jewish individuals identified by this study are married to a non-jew. Another way of describing the intermarriage picture is by household: of all married households with a married Jewish respondent 17 percent are intermarried households. This relatively low intermarriage rate may be a result of bias in the listed Jewish household sample developed for this study. In Houston more known Jewish females are partners of intermarriages than known Jewish males and the likelihood of being married to a Jew is somewhat less for a married Jewish female than a married Jewish male. This may be a function of the lesser availability of Jewish males to Jewish females mentioned above. Table 31. Percent of married adult Jews by type of Jewish marriage and by gender Jewish Marital Status Male Female Total Inmarriage (Jew to Jew) Conversionary Marriage Intermarriage Total Intermarriage trends among known Jews in Houston. It is clear when intermarriage status is examined by the age of a marriage partner who is Jewish the trend is that intermarriage increases among younger married Jews as shown in the following chart.

63 Page 64 Figure 5 Percent of married Jews by marital status and age Percent of married Jews by marital status and age percent age Inmarriage Mixed Marriage It is likely, in light of the historical trend that intermarriage and intermarried households will increase in the greater Houston area. The geographic distribution of intermarriage shows that known intermarried couples in Houston tend to live away from Jewish concentration as they do in other communities. The Clear Lake and North Houston areas have the greatest proportion of intermarried Jewish households while the Memorial and Southwest Jewishly dense areas have the lowest proportion of intermarried households. Table 32. Percent married households by Houston area and by Jewish marital status Study area Jewish Marital Status Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Total Inmarriage (Jew/Jew) Conversionary Marriage Intermarriage Total Currently four-fifths, 79 percent, of children under 18 in the listed Jewish community live in in-married Jewish households; the remainder live in intermarried households. The Southwest Houston area has the greatest number of children of intermarried, but they are outnumbered there by children of in-married by a factor of 7 to 1. Conversely, the Clear Lake area contains the fewest children of intermarriages, but almost every child in that area is a child of an intermarriage. This has implications for the socialization of Jewish children because children of intermarriage in the Southwest area may have the greatest chance to encounter Jewish children of in-marriages than in any other area of Houston and the reverse is true for the Clear Lake area. This may have implications for programs of outreach to intermarrieds.

64 Page 65 Table 33. Children in intermarried households by area ratio and percent of total children Percent of total ratio Children Southwest 1:7 4.7 Memorial 1:6 0.8 Central City 1:3 4.2 North 1:3 4.5 West 1:2 2.6 Ft. Bend 1:2 2.9 Clear Lake 1:1 0.3 Total 20.0 In terms of the denominational affiliation of known intermarried households, the largest proportion of intermarrieds identify with the Reform denomination of Judaism followed by Conservative, not surprisingly, none identified currently with Orthodox. Table 34. Percent households by denominational affiliation and Jewish marital status Jewish Denomination Currently by Jewish marital status Nondenominational Total Jewish Marital Status Conservative Orthodox Reform Reconstructionist Inmarriage Conversionary Marriage Intermarriage Total In Houston intermarried household s Jewish respondent s parents were most likely to be Conservative followed by Reform and Orthodox at 3 percent. Reconstructionist Judaism is relatively recent and thus did not appear as a response. It is interesting to note that there was a slight decline among intermarried households in the non-denominational category from 13 percent of the parents generation to 10 percent of the current denominational affiliation of intermarried respondents.

65 Page 66 Table 35. Percent respondent s parent's Jewish denomination by current Jewish marital status Respondent parent s Jewish denominational affiliation nondenominational Jewish Marital Status Conservative Orthodox Reform Total Inmarriage Conversionary Marriage Intermarriage Total The great majority, 72 percent, of children in intermarried households in listed Jewish Houston homes are being raised Jewish, 7 percent are being raised both as Jewish and Christian, 9 percent are being raised solely as Christian, another 9 percent are not being raised in any religion and the remainder are being raise in some other way. The likelihood of children of intermarriages being raised Jewish increased dramatically with increased reported frequency of synagogue attendance by the household. There was no instance of children of intermarrieds being raised Jewish when the household reported never going to synagogue or only going for weddings and Bar/Bat mitzvahs. Once a known intermarried household reported only going to yearly High Holiday services, 55 percent of the children were being raised Jewish and when it increased to going to synagogue a few times a year 79 percent were reported being raised as Jewish. Going monthly to synagogue by a known intermarried household brought the proportion of children raised Jewish to 100 percent. Based on this information High Holiday synagogue outreach to intermarried households may have a very effective result.

66 Page 67 Affiliation Almost two-thirds, 60 percent, of known Jewish adults in Houston reported that they were members of a Jewish club or organization. Of these Jewish organizationally associated households the majority, 55 percent, reported that they or someone in their household had been on the board or officer of a Jewish group or organization. This is an impressive rate of affinity, which is perhaps a by-product of the survey sample from known Jewish households used for this study. Survey respondents were asked to mention up to five Jewish groups or organizations that they belonged to. Belonging to Hadassah in Houston was the most commonly mentioned by a quarter, 27 percent, of all respondents who belonged to a Jewish organization, with a third, 34 percent, of all adult female respondents mentioning that the belonged and even 8 percent of male respondents claiming membership. The Jewish Community Center was the second most popular organizational affiliation, though males were three times more likely to mention this affiliation than females. A quarter of respondents, 26 percent, included in their mentions Jewish groups or organizations not included in the 92 organizations provided by the staff of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston and therefore the following list includes only those 29 groups or organization mentioned among the original list of 92 Jewish groups and organizations.

67 Page 68 Table 36. Percent respondents by mentions of Jewish groups belonged to by gender Jewish Groups and Orgs belonged to Male Female Total HADASSAH JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER (JCC) BETH ISRAEL NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN (NCJW) JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER HOUSTON ORT EMANU EL BETH YESHURUN B`NAI B`RITH JEWISH WAR VETERANS SEVEN ACRES JEWISH SENIOR CARE SERVICES BRITH SHALOM SISTERHOOD/BROTHERHOOD OF TEMPLE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE (ADL) HILLEL HOLOCAUST MUSEUM HOUSTON JEWISH WOMEN INTERNATIONAL (JWI) OF HOUSTON SHA`AR HASHALOM AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC) AMIT WOMEN JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE (JFS) OR AMI UNITED ORTHODOX SYNAGOGUES AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (AIPAC) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION B`NAI B`RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION (BBYO) CHABAD LUBAVITCH CENTER JEWISH COMMUNITY NORTH OR HADASH OTHER Age attractions. The attractiveness of Jewish organizations to different ages is a much discussed topic among organization members planning for their organization s future. Some Houston organizations are successfully attracting under age 40 members. Emanuel, ORT, Hadassah, NCJW and Beth Israel are pulling in younger membership. Surprisingly, the JCC, in this survey, is not demonstrating younger adult membership, but rather their membership tends to be over age 40 and male (again, perhaps a listed Jewish community sample bias). The other organization category should be noted in that it is the most mentioned by younger survey respondents, meaning that the Jewish groups that they belong to are probably small, local and not well known to much of the organized Jewish community as they did not make it to the survey organizational list of 92 groups.

68 Page 69 Table 37. Percent respondents by mentions of Jewish groups belonged to by age Age categories 65 and Jewish groups and organizations belonged to over Total HADASSAH JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER (JCC) BETH ISRAEL NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN (NCJW) JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER HOUSTON ORT EMANU EL BETH YESHURUN B`NAI B`RITH JEWISH WAR VETERANS SEVEN ACRES JEWISH SENIOR CARE SERVICES BRITH SHALOM SISTERHOOD/BROTHERHOOD OF TEMPLE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE (ADL) HILLEL HOLOCAUST MUSEUM HOUSTON JEWISH WOMEN INTERNATIONAL (JWI) OF HOUSTON SHA`AR HASHALOM AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC) AMIT WOMEN JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE (JFS) OR AMI UNITED ORTHODOX SYNAGOGUES AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (AIPAC) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION B`NAI B`RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION (BBYO) CHABAD LUBAVITCH CENTER JEWISH COMMUNITY NORTH OR HADASH OTHER Location, location, location. Only two Jewish organizations in Houston appear to be have a presence among respondents in four of the seven areas delineated in this survey, Hadassah and B nai B rith. The average Houston Jewish group or organization serves respondents in two out of the seven areas described by this survey. If other Jewish organizations area not included in the count, the Southwest, Memorial, Central City Houston respondents have the greatest choices of Jewish groups and organizations that are serving people who reside in their areas. The North and Clear Lake areas were the areas where mention of other Jewish groups and organizations were most likely, reflecting perhaps the presence of more, smaller, grassroots Jewish groups and organizations in those two Houston areas.

69 Page 70 Table 38. Percent respondents by mentions of Jewish groups belonged to by area Study area Jewish groups and organizations belonged to Central City Memorial North West South west Clear Lake Ft. Bend Total HADASSAH JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER (JCC) BETH ISRAEL NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN (NCJW) JEWISH FEDERATION OF GREATER HOUSTON ORT EMANU EL BETH YESHURUN B`NAI B`RITH JEWISH WAR VETERANS SEVEN ACRES JEWISH SENIOR CARE SERVICES BRITH SHALOM SISTERHOOD/BROTHERHOOD OF TEMPLE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE (ADL) HILLEL HOLOCAUST MUSEUM HOUSTON JEWISH WOMEN INTERNATIONAL (JWI) OF HOUSTON SHA`AR HASHALOM AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC) AMIT WOMEN JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE (JFS) OR AMI UNITED ORTHODOX SYNAGOGUES AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (AIPAC) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNION B`NAI B`RITH YOUTH ORGANIZATION (BBYO) CHABAD LUBAVITCH CENTER JEWISH COMMUNITY NORTH OR HADASH OTHER

70 Page 71 Table 39. Number of different Jewish groups and organizations mentioned by respondent by area of Houston Area Organizations Southwest 21 Memorial 11 Central City 9 West 5 North 3 Clear Lake 3 Ft. Bend 3 Jewish alphabet soup ADL, AIPAC and AJC. When respondents were asked if they had seen or heard of the ADL, AIPAC or AJC, 96 percent recognized the ADL, 61 percent had seen or heard of AIPAC and 58 percent recognized the AJC, the American Jewish Committee. The ADL is not suffering from lack of name recognition in Houston, but it is fourteenth in terms of affiliation mention by the survey s respondents. Almost two-thirds, 63 percent, of respondents said that they had not donated money, volunteered time or participated in any activities of the ADL, AIPAC or AJC. Donating money, volunteering time or participating in any activities by respondents, the ADL was mentioned by 28 percent, AIPAC and the AJC by 12 percent of respondents. Belonging to the JCC. A fifth, 21 percent, of the households surveyed reported paying membership dues to the Jewish Community Center (JCC). Almost half the known Jewish households, 49 percent, reported having a member who used the JCC in the past year. The four-fifths of respondents not members of the JCC gave a variety of reasons for not buying a membership, a third, 35 percent, said that they had no need for the JCC services offered; a quarter, 27 percent, cited distance; and another 23 percent cited cost as being the main reason for not joining.

71 Page 72 Table 40. Respondents reasons for not joining JCC Reason for not joining JCC Percent Had no need for the services offered 35 Distance from your home 27 Cost 23 Some other reason 6 No time 4 Quality of programs 2 Health 1 DK\RF 2 Total 100 Of the households who are not JCC members, a third of respondents, 34 percent, are members of health and fitness clubs. A greater proportion of these health and fitness club users cited distance and quality of JCC programs as their reasons for not joining the JCC. Commuting Respondents were asked how many minutes they would be willing to travel once or twice a week to get or take to their children to a Jewish class, event, or activity at a synagogue, a Jewish center or Jewish school. One-seventh, 15 percent, of respondents weren t willing to travel at all. The average commute time that respondents in Houston were willing to make under these circumstances was 23 minutes. Organizational Affiliation The organizational household. The known Jews of Houston associate with Jewish groups to an impressive degree, but when non-jewish groups and organizations are taken into account, four out of five, 80 percent of households in Houston associate. Over a third, 35 percent, of households associate with both Jewish and non-jewish organizations and 18 percent affiliate only with groups and organizations that don t have a specifically Jewish purpose. Lots of leaders. Of those 35 percent associating households associated in both Jewish and secular groups, something approaching half, 42 percent, of these households have held board or leadership positions in both types of groups. A minority, 7 percent, of respondents had leadership in the non-jewish groups setting but not in the Jewish setting and a quarter, 25 percent held leadership in Jewish groups only and the remaining quarter reported remaining off the board and out of leadership in both settings. So it appears that the Jewish households in this study are not only affiliate to a great degree, but when they do they don t shy away from leadership both in Jewish and non-jewish group and organizational settings. Associating to change things. Over a third, 38 percent, of respondents reported belong to an organization which took political stands. The political orientation of the respondents was divided across the political spectrum with a third, 36 percent, describing themselves as liberal or very liberal, a third, 34 percent, self-described as middle-of-the-road and 25

72 Page 73 percent responded that they were conservative or very conservative and 5 percent didn t know or refused to say. Houston s known Jewish community are active political participants with 46 percent of respondents talking or writing their congressperson or political representative in the past year; a third of these communicators, 36 percent, raising an issue relating to Israel. These households made their views known at the ballot box with 97 percent reporting voting in the past four years in at least one election; and over half, 57 percent, reporting voting all local, state and national elections in the past four years. Almost every other respondent, 40 percent, reported having contributed money to a political candidate in the past four years and one-in-five, 20 percent, actually work in a campaign for the election of a local, state or national candidate during that time period.

73 Page 74 Synagogue Membership The synagogue is the institution that elicits the greatest degree of loyalty and generosity among Jewish known community members as is seen in the analysis of philanthropy in the listed Houston Jewish community. Synagogue attendance fluctuates with individuals, with events and with the calendar. Only 2.5 percent of adults are among the pool of people who make weekday prayer minyans. For weekly services 15 percent to something approaching half, 46 percent, of the adult community may show up. By high holidays almost nine-out-of-ten, 87 percent, of Jewish adults will be in attendance and a few more will join in only on celebratory and life-cycle events that take place in the synagogue. A minority, 7 percent, of known Jewish respondents never attend the synagogue. Table 41. How frequently do you attend synagogue services? cumulative percent Frequency of attendance percent Several times a week or more Weekly A few times a month About once a month A few times a year Only high holidays, weddings\bar/bat mitzvahs Never, except for weddings and Bar/Bat mitzvahs Never Total 100 Denominational affiliation influences synagogue attendance predictably, with Orthodox on one end of the continuum and non-denominational on the less frequent end of the opposite side. Orthodox respondents are the most regular synagogue goers, with 54 percent attending weekly.

74 Page 75 How frequently do you attend synagogue services? Table 42. Synagogue attendance by denominational affiliation Jewish Denomination Currently Reconstr Nondenominational Total Conservative Orthodox Reform uctionist Never Never, except for weddings and Bar/Bat Mitzvahs Only high holidays, weddings\bar/bat Mitzvahs A few times a year About once a month A few times a month Weekly Several times a week or more Total In Houston women are somewhat more likely to be found in a synagogue service than their male counterparts. Three-quarters, 75 percent of females say they attend synagogue a few times a year as compared to their male counterparts, at 70 percent attendance, a few times a year. Interestingly, two percent of female respondents as compared to 3.6 percent of male respondents report attending synagogue in Houston several times a week. Table 43. Frequency of synagogue attendance by gender Frequency Male Female Total Never Never, except for weddings and Bar/Bat Mitzvahs Only high holidays, weddings\bar/bat Mitzvahs A few times a year About once a month A few times a month Weekly Several times a week or more Total Market share. What proportion of Jewish bodies can each of the denominations claim to represent among the Jewish known community? The largest group that the religious Jewish institutions of Houston serve is persons age 45 to 64 and they, 33 percent of total known Jews, are mostly, 28 percent, denominationally associated to the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements. The next largest group is children who echo the numbers of their denominational elders, except for Orthodox children who approach

75 Page 76 being as large a group as their elders. Overall, Reform constitute 42 percent, Conservative constitute 39 percent, Orthodox 9 percent, Reconstructionist 1 percent and non-denominational are 9 percent. Table 44. Total percent known Jewish persons by current household Jewish denomination and age Age categories Jewish Denomination Currently 65 and over under Total Conservative Orthodox Reform Reconstructionist Non-denominational Total The Jewish ethnicity in Houston is predominantly Ashkenazi, 70 percent, with about 10 percent being Sephardi or a combination of Sephardi. The remaining fifth, 20 percent, mostly doesn t know or describes themselves in what can be termed just Jewish. Table 45. Jewish ethnicity in Houston Jewish ethnicity Percent Ashkenazi 66.9 Sephardi 8.1 Ashkenazi\Sephardi combination 1.9 American 1.9 Can t describe 2.8 Just Jewish\Jewish\Regular 2.1 Mixed 0.4 None\No religion 0.6 Reform 0.6 Russian Jewish 0.3 Something else 1.9 DK\NR 12.7 Total 100 Giving its due. In Houston s listed Jewish community almost three-quarters of households, 72 percent, report having paid synagogue dues in the past year. Over threefifths, 61 percent, of households belong to the three largest synagogues with Beth Yeshurun having about a quarter, Emanu El a fifth, and Beth Israel almost a fifth of the listed Jewish households as members. A small minority, 3 percent, of respondents did not know which synagogue received their household dues, probably because they were not the members of their household most involved with the synagogue. This point

76 Page 77 highlights the great differential that may exist between members of the same household as to their relationship to the synagogue actually receiving household contributions. Table 46. Percent households by synagogue membership Which synagogue(s) member of Beth Yeshurun 23.7 Emanu El 19.6 Beth Israel 17.4 Brith Shalom 7.0 United Orthodox synagogues 5.4 Beth El 4.6 Or Ami 3.0 Sinai 2.5 Sha`ar Hashalom 2.3 Beth Shalom of The Woodlands 2.1 Jewish Community North 2.1 Houston Reconstructionist Havurah 1.4 Young Israel of Houston 1.2 Beth Torah 1.1 Houston Congregation for Reform Judaism 1.1 Beth Rambam 0.7 Beth Tikvah 0.7 Chabad Lubavitch Center 0.7 Or Hadash 0.7 Beth Am 0.4 Meyerland Minyan 0.4 Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, Inc. 0.4 Chabad House at the Texas Medical Center 0.2 Mishpachat Alizim 0.2 Other 0.5 DK\NR 3.2 Lapsed synagogue members. The 28 percent of households who are not dues paying synagogue members were asked whether they or any member of their household had ever been dues paying synagogue members since becoming a adult. The majority, 54 percent, had been and were now lapsed while 43 percent had never been members since adulthood and 3 percent didn t know if they had been. The vast majority of current synagogue nonmembers said that their status is temporary and 66 percent said that they would definitely be, and an additional 17 percent said they would probably be, a dues paying synagogue member in the future. Only 4 percent said they would definitely not be synagogue members in the future.

77 Page 78 Motivations For Choosing A Synagogue Households may choose a synagogue to join, but often because of family history and life stages, many choose a synagogue to stay in or to leave. Of the respondents who were not synagogue members at the time of study, four out of five, 78 percent, stated that they or their family members had been synagogue members when they had been children. Therefore, only 6 percent of the Houston listed Jewish community are not now, nor were not as children, members of synagogues. Love that rabbi. The reasons why a Jewish household decision maker may choose to be a member of a particular synagogue vary. The most salient reason for choosing a synagogue was the quality of the rabbi, cited as very important by 64 percent of respondents. Friendliness of the congregation and the respondent s need to identify with the Jewish community and own personal religious observations were also very important motivations for joining a synagogue. Less important factors to Houston s Jewish known community were religious schooling and the presence of a day school near the synagogue as well as the distance of the synagogue from the respondent s home. The least important factor was opposition to musical and instrumental accompaniment of services, though the quality of the cantor and enjoyment were important to the majority of respondents in their decision making about whether to join or not join. Cost of synagogue membership was important as a factor to 71 percent of the respondents. Table 47. Reasons for joining or not joining a synagogue opposed to musical and instrumental accompaniment DK\NR Total Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Synagogue attribute Important Important unimportant unimportant Friendliness of a congregation Cost Need to send children to religious school Presence of day school adjacent to synagogue Your own need to identify with the Jewish community Your own personal religious observance Distance from your home Quality of the rabbi Quality of the cantor or liturgy Enjoyment of musical and instrumental accompaniment in services

78 Page 79 Friends house. The friendliness of a congregation is a major factor in the choice of survey respondent, not surprisingly, because the synagogue is a major source of Jewish friendships. All together, 87 percent of respondents said that at least some of their closest friends were Jewish. One-eighth, 12 percent, of Jews known to the organized Jewish community said that all of their closest friends were Jewish and one-eighth, 13 percent, said almost none or none of their closest friends were Jewish.

79 Page 80 Jewish Attitudes Jews interviewed for this study had a strong sense of their Jewishness, their commonality with and belongingness to the Jewish people. He or she, along with 88 percent, of other respondents has a clear sense of what being Jewish means to them. Even more, 94 percent, have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people and 72 percent feel that the Jews of the United States and the Jews of Israel share a common fate. When respondents were asked how attached the were to Israel, two-thirds, 63 percent, said that they were extremely attached or very attached to Israel, most of the rest, 25 percent, were somewhat attached and only 9 percent said they were not attached to Israel, the remainder didn t know or refused to say. The Jewish respondents in Houston are in the main a believer in God, 70 percent never doubting the existence of God. Judaism provides a moral compass for 70 percent when they make important life decisions. The idea of needing to belong to an organized religion is accepted by two-thirds, 66 percent, and 76 percent feel that synagogues are an important and needed institution, in spite of the fact that people may have God within them. There is a universality among the Jews survey in that 57 percent agree that all the great religions of the world are equally true and good.

80 Page 81 Table 48. Percent of respondents by agreement with Jewish attitudes Strongly agree agree disagree Attitude I never doubt the existence of God Jews in the United States and Jews in Israel share a common fate. I do not have clear sense of what being Jewish means to me. I have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people I don't have to belong to an organized religion because I lead a good life When faced with an important life decision, I look to Judaism for guidance. People have God within them, so synagogues aren't important All the great religions of the world are equally true and good. strongly disagree DK\NR Total For me to be a Jew is... The great majority, 88 percent of people in this survey were clear on what it meant for them to be a Jew. For the vast majority, 91 percent, leading an ethical and moral life provides the clearest personal meaning that of part of how they are Jewish. For those who have children, giving them a Jewish education ranks high with 85 percent of respondents and even with those respondents who currently do not have children, 59 percent said that it had a lot to do with part of how they are Jewish. Making the world a better place was integral to the Jewishness of 72 percent of respondents, but it doesn t seem to strongly include doing something about homelessness and preserving the environment for those known Jews in Houston. Believing in God was a lot of what being a Jew meant for 65 percent of respondents. But, for many God meant a personal belief in God, rather than a communally celebrated God. Attending synagogue is not viewed by many as a vibrant part of how they are Jewish nor is observing Jewish halachic law or celebrating Jewish holidays. In addition to synagogue attendance not being viewed as integral to Jewishness, other local communal aspects such as supporting Jewish organizations and being part of a Jewish community is not high on people s lists of being part of how they are Jewish. A personal enhanced Judaism of an enriched spiritual life, learning about Jewish history and culture

81 Page 82 is not strongly viewed by a majority as how they are Jewish. A more abstract feeling of Jewish communalism, such as caring about Israel, was seen by the majority, 64 percent, as having a lot to do with how they were Jewish, as was caring about Israel for 64 percent and countering anti-semitism by 59 percent of respondents. The personal, in terms of connecting to their own family had a lot to do with how 64 percent of respondents saw as part of their being Jewish. Table 49. What being a Jew meant for respondents part of how you are Jewish Not at all Only a little Somewhat A lot DK\NR Leading an ethical and moral life Giving your children a Jewish education? Making the world a better place? Believing in God? Caring about Israel? Connecting to your family Giving children you might have a Jewish education? Countering anti-semitism? Celebrating Jewish holidays? Being part of a Jewish community? Having a rich spiritual life? Learning about Jewish history and culture? Preserving the environment Supporting Jewish organizations? Observing Jewish law (halacha)? Attending synagogue Doing something about homelessness We as a community. In spite of the dissociation of many respondents Jewishness and things communal, there are still many who hold communal institutions as a great part of their Jewishness. A third, 30 percent, of respondents do feel that to a great extent they have been able to find ways to feel part of a community and that for the same proportion Jewish institutions have contributed to a great extent to their feeling that they are part of a community. Only 14 percent stated that Jewish institutions in Houston have not at all contributed to their feeling that they are part of a community and even most of those people, at least to a minimal extent have been able to find ways of feeling part of a community.

82 Page 83 Table 50. Respondents feeling part of the Jewish community Feeling To a great extent To an adequate extent To some extent To a minimal extent To what extent have you been able to find ways to feel part of a community? To what extent have Jewish institutions contributed to your feeling that you are part of a community Not at all DK\NR Total The house of gathering. In spite of the low attitudinal measures that synagogues display among many respondents as to its being a part of their Jewishness, when it comes to reflecting on what did give them a feeling that they are part of the Jewish community, the synagogue was cited first by nine-out-of-ten, 89 percent, of those asked. The Jewish Community Center was a distant second, the Jewish Federation and Jewish service agencies distant thirds. In Houston, the synagogue is the primary institution for enabling a feeling of being part of the Jewish community for most known Jews. Table 51. Institutions contributed to respondent feeling that are part of a Jewish community Jewish institutions Percent Synagogue or temple 88.7 Jewish Center 6.5 Jewish Federation 1.6 Jewish service agency 1.6 Other 1.6 Total 100 The presentation and perception of Jewish self is part of the constellation of a Jewish person s attitudes. The perception of anti-semitism is very much a component of a Jewish person s Jewish attitudes. Almost a quarter, 23 percent, of respondents reported personally experiencing anti-semitism in the past five years, the most common experience was in being singled out in a social relationship as a Jew by about a quarter, 23 percent, of the experiences. One-in-seven, 15 percent, of respondents recalled feeling personally threatened in an encounter with known anti-semitic persons, groups, graffiti or literature (e.g. skinheads, Aryan Front, Christian Identity).

83 Page 84 Table 52. Percent of type of anti-semitism experienced in last five years in Houston Type of anti-semitism experienced Percent In being singled out unfavorably as a Jewish person in a social relationship 23 In feeling personally threatened in an encounter with known anti-semites 15 In being singled out unfavorably as a Jewish person in a personal relationship 11 Discrimination in an educational setting 8 Anti-Semitic language, comments, jokes 8 In getting accepted as a member of a club or organization 6 Incident at work or business transaction 5 Discrimination in getting a job 4 Discrimination in getting a job promotion 3 Something else 19 Total 100 The personal is the political. Personal Jewish behavior can be an outward display of Jewish attitudes. For example the fact that four-in-five, 79 percent, of listed Jewish households have a mezuzah on their front door means that this is something about their being Jewish that they are displaying to the world and is their expression of their feeling and attitude about being part of the Jewish community. Only a quarter, 28 percent, do anything special to celebrate the Sabbath at home if they don t light Friday night candles as 70 percent of respondents do at least sometimes, but other more public and communal displays such as lighting Hanukkah candles, attending a Passover Seder or fasting on Yom Kippur have a higher level of engagement than do personal private behaviors within the home. Table 53. Percent respondents engaged in Jewish behaviors All the Jewish behaviors time Usually Sometimes Never Total Participate in lighting of Hanukkah candles A attend a Seder Do you have a mezuzah Fast last Yom Kippur Light Sabbath candles on Friday night Household have a Christmas tree Do you keep Kosher at home Do anything special to celebrate the Sabbath if no candles lit

84 Page 85 Philanthropy The findings of this survey attest to the prominence of the Jewish Federation in the known Houston Jewish community. The Jewish Federation of Greater Houston operates in the larger environment of general society and while it is the most prominent presence within the Jewish sphere for Jews, it may not be the most supported. When respondents were asked if they had heard of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston the vast majority, 93 percent, said that they did. Most of the respondents said that they had saw or heard about the Jewish Federation by seeing the Jewish Federation building. The Jewish Herald-Voice was effective outreach tool as well as family, mail, club or organization friends and synagogue. About one-in-ten could not remember how they saw or heard about the Jewish Federation. General media such as billboards, cold calling, TV, posters were either not used or not effectively used by the Jewish Federation in making itself known. Table 54. Percent of responses on seeing or hearing about Jewish Federation Where did you see or hear about it? Saw Jewish Community building or campus 24 Jewish Herald-Voice 11 Don t Know 11 Family 10 Mail 10 Club or organization 8 Friends 7 Synagogue 7 Work there or Contributor 5 Newspaper 4 Other 2 Billboard 1 Phone 1 TV 1 Poster 1 Total 100 The majority of respondents, 56 percent, had a positive impression of the Jewish Federation and only 5 percent had a negative impression.

85 Page 86 Table 55. Percent respondents impression of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston Impression Percent Positive 56 Negative 5 Neutral 34 Other 1 DK\NR 4 Total 100 Among the organizations or charities that known Jews in Houston gave to in the preceding year, the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston was to most salient first mention, with almost a quarter of the first mentions. Health charities were the most common second mention, which were followed by synagogues. Social and other service organizations, both general and Jewish were mentioned first equally by about a tenth of the respondents. Table 56. Organizations or charities gave money last year 1rst response categories Jewish Federation 23.1 Health Charities (General) 18.5 Synagogue 14.6 Service Orgs. (General) 11.1 Jewish Service Orgs Jewish Womens Organization 7.6 Jewish Education 2.9 Jewish Community Center 2.9 Education (General) 2.2 Public Arts and Broadcasting 2.0 Israel centered charities 1.5 Animal Charities 1.5 Womens Orgs.(General) 0.9 ADL 0.6 Non-Jewish Religious Orgs. 0.3 Total Survey respondents could mention up to five charities or organizations that they had given to and when this was tabulated by most frequent mention then health charities such as the cancer and other disease and health care charities received the most frequent mentions. After general societal service organization the Jewish Federation leads the Jewish causes that follow, such as Jewish service organizations, synagogues, Jewish women s organizations, Jewish education. This reflects that the listed Jewish community in Houston is very much a part of the general society as well as the close connection it

86 Page 87 may have with the health care causes through its occupational composition, which leans heavily towards the health professions. Table 57. Percent of all mentions by respondents of charities or organizations they have given to Giving Choices Percent Health Charities (General) 24.3 Service Orgs. (General) 12.1 Jewish Federation 11.8 Jewish Service Orgs Synagogue 11.2 Jewish Women s Organization 5.3 Jewish Education 4.9 Education (General) 3.8 Public Arts and Broadcasting 3.5 Israel centered charities 2.9 Animal Charities 2.1 Jewish Community Center 2.0 ADL 1.3 Womens Orgs.(General) 1.1 Non-Jewish Religious Orgs. 0.7 Environmental Orgs. 0.6 Jewish Health Charities 0.2 Jewish Arts 0.1 Total 100 The giving palette. The following table shows that as household income increases so does the likelihood of mentioning giving to the Jewish Federation. For those household respondents having less than a $25,000 yearly household income, only 15 percent of those in this lowest income category mention the Federation among their five mention opportunities. This is contrasted by 59 percent of those respondents in the highest income category, $250,000 and over, mentioning the Federation as one of their giving choices. The same linear relationship between giving mentions and income does not exist for Houston synagogues. The most synagogue giving mentions are in the $25,000 to less than $50,000 and the $100,000 to less than $250,000 income categories. On the other hand the Houston Jewish Community Center, does demonstrate a roughly linear relationship with income and received especially prominent mention by those respondents at the highest income category, $250,000 and over. The highest income category, $250,000 and over, demonstrates the salience of health and disease charities, synagogues, Jewish Service organizations as well as general societal charities for this high income group.

87 Page 88 Table 58. Percent giving mentions by household income categories Giving Choices Percent Giving Mentions by Household Income Categories Under $25,000 $25,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 to less than $250,000 OVER $250,000 Column % Column % Column % Column % Column % Jewish Federation Synagogue ADL Jewish Womens Organization Jewish Service Orgs Jewish Education Israel centered charities Jewish Health Charities Non-Jewish Religious Orgs Womens Orgs.(Genera Service Orgs. (General) Education (General) Environmental Orgs Health Charities (General) Animal Charities Jewish Arts 1.0 Jewish Community Center Public Arts and Broadcasting DK\NR Playing favorites. Another way of looking at charities is simply by asking respondents which one is their favorite. When the question is framed forthrightly, the answer is predictable, the synagogue is the favorite, as has been found in most other Jewish community studies, such as Los Angeles and Seattle, where this question was asked. The Jewish Federation takes its traditional place of being the second favorite charity.

88 Page 89 Table 59. Favorite charity among those money contributed to last year Charity type Percent Synagogue 23.0 Jewish Federation 20.0 Health Charities (General) 18.2 Jewish Service Orgs. 9.8 Service Orgs. (General) 8.0 Jewish Womens Organization 4.5 Jewish Education 3.9 Jewish Community Center 3.9 Israel centered charities 3.3 Education (General) 2.9 Animal Charities 1.2 Public Arts and Broadcasting 1.1 Womens Orgs.(General) 0.3 Total Favorite charity by giving level. The vast majority, 87 percent, of $5,000 and over donors to Federation, not surprisingly, said that Federation was their favorite among all their charities and causes. Only synagogues and health charities competed for the loyalties of the Federation top-level donors in the known Houston Jewish sample used for this study. Table 60. Percent favorite charity by giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 Giving level $100 to $1000 to $5000 $1 to less less than less than and Favorite charity Non-giver than $100 $1000 $5000 over Total Jewish Federation Synagogue Jewish Womens Organization Jewish Service Orgs Jewish Education Israel centered charities Womens Orgs.(General) Service Orgs. (General) Education (General) Health Charities (General) Animal Charities Jewish Community Center Public Arts and Broadcasting Total

89 Page 90 Contact with the Jewish Federation Donor The majority of respondents, 61 percent, remembered being contacted by the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in the year For this groups the majority, 52 percent, of Federation contact was by telephone and more than a third, 37 percent, was by mail, 8 percent of contact was in person or by a friend or acquaintance and the remainder was by some other way or not remembered. The impression of the Federation contact was positive for 50 percent of those contacted and was negative for 9 percent. For the remainder of respondents contacted in 2000 the impression of the contact was neutral. Of the persons contacted for a contribution to the Federation almost half, 45 percent, said that they contributed and 47 percent said that they did not, the remaining did not remember or refused to state. When those who said they gave and those who did not remember were asked the size of their gift to the Federation, the largest giving category stated by respondents in Houston was $100 to less than $500. The major donor level of $10,000 or more, contained 1.6 percent of the respondents, or a total of 12 respondents out of 730, for which there was relevant information available for this analysis. Table 61. Percent of stated contribution in 2000 Size of contribution Percent No contribution 51.0 $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $ $500 to less than $1, $1,000 to less than $2, $2,500 to less than $5, $5,000 to less than $10, $10,000 to less than $25, $25,000 to less than $50, $50,000 to less than $100, $100,000 OR MORE 0.3 Don t Know or refused 9.0 Total Increase or decrease? Respondents who stated that they were donors to the Jewish Federation were asked if their donations had increased or decreased in the past three years and for what reason. Over half, 58 percent, said that their Federation contribution had neither increased or decreased, but it remained the same. Over a quarter, 29 percent, reported that their donations had increased in the past 3 years and an additional 5 percent of respondents said that their donations had declined. The increased givers. The reasons given for an increase was the increased awareness of need at 44 percent followed by a change in income for 22 percent of respondents, these

90 Page 91 two reason were two-thirds of the reasons given for an increase in respondents Federation contributions. Table 62. Reasons given for an increase of Federation gift What is the major reason it increased? Percent Increased awareness of need 44 Change in income 22 Other Special solicitation 4 Asked by others to give 4 Policies of Israel 4 Took trip Israel 4 Lifestyle change (children finished college, spouse joined workforce) 4 Other 4 Commitment at synagogue, temple or school 2 Change in giving priorities 2 DK\NR 6 The decreased givers The reasons given for a decline in Federation giving were primarily economic in nature for two-thirds of the respondents and dissatisfaction with a perceived Federation policy or orientation for the remaining third. Table 63. Reasons given for a decrease of Federation gift What is the major reason it decreased? Percent Dissatisfaction with Federation 33.3 Income has remained flat or the same 22.2 Other Special solicitation 11.1 Asked by others to give 11.1 Unusual expenses 11.1 Change in income 11.1 Total 100 The un-increased givers The reasons given for the donation remaining the same were also economic in almost half, 46 percent, of the reasons, but competing philanthropic commitments were also expressed by 10 percent as the main reasons for their donation to the Federation not changing.

91 Page 92 Table 64. Reasons given for Federation gift remaining the same What is the major reason it remained the same? Percent Income has remained flat or the same 36.1 Always give the same amount 23.7 Change in income 7.2 Dissatisfaction with Federation 6.2 Other Special solicitation 5.2 Other 5.2 Unusual expenses 3.1 Asked by others to give 2.1 Change in giving priorities 2.1 Lifestyle change (children in college, spouse left workforce 2.1 Building fund commitment at synagogue, temple or school 1.0 Family crisis (death, divorce, illness) 1.0 Retirement 1.0 DK\NR 4.1 Total 100 The non-givers Those respondents who did not give at all most commonly provided the classic reason for not giving, they were not asked. Along with the other classic response for non-givers, no awareness of need, these two reasons constitute over a third, 36 percent, of the reasons for not giving. A fourth, 24 percent, reasoned that their personal economics prevented them from giving. Another fifth, 20 percent, mentioned competing philanthropic pulls as the reason for not donating to the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston. Less than one in twenty, 4 percent, of the reasons for not giving could be attributed to Jewish politics, that is unhappiness with the Federation in some way or Israel politics.

92 Page 93 Table 65. Percent of reasons given by respondents for not contributing to Federation in 2000 What is the major reason you do not give? Percent Never asked 18.2 No awareness of need 17.8 Committed to supporting other Jewish organizations or agencies 13.8 Change in income 8.0 Income has remained flat or the same 8.0 Unusual expenses 6.7 Change in giving priorities 3.1 Dissatisfaction with Jewish Federation contact 2.7 Jewish Federation stances on political issues 2.2 Asked to give through special solicitations 1.8 Jewish Federation policies 1.8 Other 1.8 Family crisis (death, divorce, illness) 1.3 Building fund commitment at synagogue, temple or school 0.9 Lifestyle change (children in college, spouse left workforce 0.9 Policies of Israel 0.4 DK\NR 10.7 Total 100 Trends of increase in major giving According to the self-described Federation giving patterns of respondents, modestly giving respondent remained stable in the past three years ending with the year 2001 and there was a trend towards increase as the size of Federation gifts increased. This phenomenon points the effectiveness of a strategy getting increases in donations by the donors who will have the greatest effect on the overall Federation fundraising campaign in Houston. Especially impressive, if actually verified by administrative data, is the trend of increase in the $5000 and over donor category. Table 66. Percent stated giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by stated giving trend over past 3 years Over the past 3 years, have your contributions to the Jewish Federation: remained the Stated giving level increased same decreased DK\NR Total $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $ $1000 to less than $ $5000 and over Total

93 Page 94 Geographical patterns of Federation giving The Memorial area of Houston is salient in the low proportion of non-givers and the high proportion of major donors who live in this area. The giving picture of is mixed with regard to the Central City area of Houston where there are a relatively high proportion of non-donor households along with a healthy proportion of modest and major donors. The Southwest area is characterized by the predominance of smaller and mid-level donors with a weakness in the major donor level. The North, Clear Lake and Ft. Bend areas of Houston show the least strength in giving the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston. Table 67. Percent stated giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by area Study area Central Clear Ft. Giving level City Memorial North West Southwest Lake Bend Total Non-giver $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $ $1000 to less than $ $5000 and over Total The following table demonstrates the importance of the Memorial area in terms of the major gifts generated in this area of Houston as it is where two-thirds, 67 percent, of the gifts of $5000 and over originate. The Southwest Houston area shows its importance to the Federation as the major area of residence of the preponderance of its donors under the $5000 giving level and as a major area of Jewish population concentration, having over a third, 37 percent, of the total Jewish population of Houston. The relatively large number of non-givers, low and mid-level givers in the Southwest area suggest that is may be a fertile ground for increased donorship especially since one-in-six households, 17 percent, with incomes greater than $250,000 reside in Houston s Southwest area. Table 68. Percent stated giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by area Study area Central South Clear Ft. Giving level City Memorial North West west Lake Bend Other Total Non-giver $1 to less than $ $100 to $ $1000 to $ $5000 and over Total Penetration of types of contact There are a number of ways that respondents say that they saw or heard of the federation which can be classified into two types of contact, indirect contact through the formal means such as advertising, television, billboards, posters, etc. and more organic contacts of a personal or mediated personal nature such as family,

94 Page 95 friends, neighbors, synagogue and membership organizations, etc. It comes as no surprise that larger donors tend to a greater extent to have seen or heard of the Federation through personal contacts than more modest or non-donors. Table 69. Giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 by type of contact Type of contact Giving Formal Personal Total Non-giver $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $ $1000 to less than $ $5000 and over Total Getting the contact that is deserved Personal contact with potential donors When the geographic patterns of the type of contact is examined, a predictable pattern emerges in light of what is known about the Memorial area s characteristics. The Ft. Bend area emerges as an area having disproportionate personal contact with the Jewish Federation, though its level of giving is not congruent with the relatively high level of personal contact. Southwest Houston which has the largest population and therefore poses the greatest challenge to penetrating it through personal contact has to gain 7 percent so that it would receive the amount of personal contact commensurate with its proportion in the known Houston Jewish community. Table 70. Percent type of contact with Jewish Federation by area Type of contact Study area Formal Personal Total Central City Memorial North West Southwest Clear Lake Ft. Bend Other Total Personal contact with those with capacity to give While known Jewish households who have incomes of under $100,000 report personal contact with the Federation at about levels commensurate with their proportion in the total known Houston Jewish community, so do Jewish households with incomes of over $100,000, which represent the households with the greatest giving capacity. [David and Randy, the is where you bring out, with a flourish, your product that will solve the Federation s problem.] The greatest

95 Page 96 return on investment by the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston may be to increase its efforts in increasing personal contacts to this important group. Table 71. Percent Formal or personal contact with Jewish Federation by Household Income Type of contact Household Income Categories Formal Personal Total Under $25, $25,000 to less than $50, $50,000 to less than $100, $100,000 to less than $250, OVER $250, Total Ask and ye shall receive Though the following table is based on relatively few cases from the households which stated that they did not give to Federation in 2000, it gives hints as to the reasons. For households earning $100,000 to under $250,000, disproportionately the reason stated was that they were not asked to give. Though nongiving households with incomes $250,000 and above were asked a bit more than the rest of the known Jewish community, the battle for their attention in the face of the attractions of other agencies and other giving priorities is great in addition to keeping their dissatisfaction with perceived Federation stances on political issues to turning into nongiving. The information from the following table points again to the utility of increasing efforts in creating personal contacts especially among those households earning over $100,000, for they have the greatest likelihood of becoming the households who will have incomes of $250,000 in the future.

96 Page 97 Table 72. Percent major reason for not giving to Federation by household income Household Income Categories $100,000 $50,000 to to less less than than $100,000 $250,000 $25,000 to less than $50,000 What is the major reason you do not give? Under $25,000 OVER $250,000 Total No awareness of need Never asked Unusual expenses Change in income Income has remained flat or the same Building fund commitment at synagogue, temple or school Committed to supporting other Jewish organizations or agencies Asked to give through special solicitations Jewish Federation stances on political issues Jewish Federation policies Change in giving priorities Family crisis (death, divorce, illness) Lifestyle change (children in college, spouse left workforce Other Dissatisfaction with Jewish Federation contact DK\NR Total The generational factor in giving. Research on Jewish giving has demonstrated that the farther away from the immigrant experience a person is the less of a tendency to give to Jewish communal institutions. This seems to hold true for the study s sample of known Jews in Houston. In the Federation donor levels of $100 and greater there is a peaking of giving by third generation respondents, that is respondents born in the US with US born parents and foreign born grandparents. The fact of having grandparents who underwent the immigrant experience greatly enhances the willingness to donate to the Jewish Federation. Simply by determining whether prospective donors parents were born in the US and grandparents were born abroad the ability to focus in on prospective major donors may be enhanced.

97 Page 98 Table 73. Percent of respondents by generation in the US by giving levels to the Jewish Federation in 2000 Generation in US 1st 2nd 3rd 4rth Giving level Generation Generation Generation Generation Total Non-giver $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $ $1000 to less than $ $5000 and over Total General Philanthropic Preferences Almost half, 48 percent, the households surveyed reported that in 2000 they contributed more to Jewish charities than to non-jewish charities, 29 percent gave more to non- Jewish charities, 13 percent said that their household gave about the same and the remaining 10 percent didn t know or refused to say. Table 74. Did your household contribute more to Jewish charities or non- Jewish charities Type of charity Valid Percent Jewish charities 48.3 Non-Jewish charities 28.5 About the same 13.1 DK\NR 10.1 Total 100 When looking at the study respondents as to what their Jewish Federation giving was in the context of their overall giving in 2000, only 4 percent report not making any gift to any charity at all while 58 percent of known Jewish respondents reported not making a gift to the Federation, that is 54 percent of known Jewish households made gifts to other charities by not to the Jewish Federation. At the other end of the scale 12 percent of respondent reported making charitable donations of $5,000 and greater in 2000 and 4 percent were Federation non-givers, 1 percent gave less than $100, 3 percent gave less than $1000 and 3 percent gave less than $5,000 to the Jewish Federation. The fact that over one in ten of the known Jewish households in Houston gives $5,000 and over and almost one-in-two households give over $1,000 a year to charity is significant in terms of the generosity of the known Jewish community.

98 Page 99 Table 75. Percent total charitable giving by Jewish Federation giving in 2000 Total charitable contributions in 2000 Giving level to Jewish Federation of Greater Houston in 2000 $100 to less than $1000 $1 to less than $1000 to $5000 less than and Non-giver $100 $5000 over Total Non-giver $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $1000 $1000 to less than $ $5000 and over Total The urge to give When respondents were asked what in deciding to give to a charitable cause was important to them, the two most important considerations were the reputation of the charity and that it was a cause that the respondent could sympathize with. The least considered factor was that that people who are personal friends also make a gift to the charitable cause and that someone asks them personally. This finding contradicts the known wisdom of fundraising and the findings above with regard to the association of personal contacts and increasing giving, but when you ask the donor, they will often deny the influence of the personal and peer group consideration. Previous research by the authors has found the importance of anonymity and a feeling of being independent from personal pressure by some high end donors and these survey responses may reflect that rather than whether personal contact and influence is effective or not.

99 Page 100 Table 76. Consideration important in giving choice by total donation level Values are 1= very important to 4=very unimportant Total charitable contributions in 2000 $1 to $100 to $1000 to $5000 Consideration important in giving Nongiver less than less than less than and choice $100 $1000 $5000 over The reputation of the charity That it is a cause that you can sympathize with The ability of the charity to know community needs and direct your gift to That you can designate which particular program your gift will be used for That you can designate which type of persons in need your gift will be used That someone ask you personally That people who are personal friends also make a gift to the charitable cause The poor of your city or poor Jews abroad When respondents were asked where they felt the funds the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston raises should go to help people locally or in Israel, the plurality, 40 percent, said that a larger percentage should be allocated locally. Almost a third said that the money should be allocated locally, a quarter, 23 percent, didn t know and 8 percent said that a larger percent should be allocated to Israel. Federation donors of $1,000 to $5,000 in Houston are most pronounced about the preference for a greater percentage of the Federation allocation going to Israel. Major donors of $5,000 and over are the most pronounce in their preference that the Federation allocate its resources evenly. Table 77. Percent saying Jewish Federation allocation preference by Jewish Federation giving level Jewish Federation of Greater Houston should allocate greater percent to Giving level Evenly Local Israel Don't know Total Non-giver $1 to less than $ $100 to less than $ $1000 to less than $ $5000 and over Total

100 Page 101 PRIZM Analysis Use of PRIZM Neighborhood typing This study is unique in that each respondent record carries with it a two-character code describing the neighborhood type of the household. New Sources has been using these neighborhood codes (a.k.a., PRIZM codes) in Jewish communal consulting for over five years, in over a half million federation records. Inclusion of these neighborhood types enables the Houston Jewish community to view the survey results from a different perspective than demographic or study area crosstabs alone. Since each contributing agency to the master list from which we sampled also has their constituency list coded with PRIZM, they can look specifically for results that match their neighborhood types rather than just the overall rates of behavior. Understanding Jewish attitudes, observances, and demographics by PRIZM enables Houston agencies to extrapolate results of this survey into their own constituencies at much more granular detail. For example, if Agency1 has a constituency base dominated by City dwellers, they can extrapolate their members vote more regularly than the Houston listed Jewish community at large, and their members feel more financial insecurity than their peers (see tables later in this chapter). There are 62 PRIZM codes (PRIZM, cluster, segment all these terms are used synonymously for neighborhood type) in the typology. Each segment code falls within one of 15 aggregating Social Groups, distinguished primarily by their degree of urbanization and affluence. The five degrees of urbanization for Social Groups are (from the greatest households per square mile to the least): Urban, City, Suburban, Town, and Rural. The three degrees of affluence (based on educational attainment and household income, 1 being the highest) are simply A more complete treatment of PRIZM segmentation can be found in the appendix, PRIZM Cluster Narratives. For purposes of this study, we have collapsed the 15 Social Groups down to 4 Social Types by ignoring the delineation in affluence and combining Rural and Town respondents into one type: Exurban. The 4 Social Types, in descending order of urbanization, are: Urban, City, Suburban, and Exurban. Urban neighborhoods are very dense (high households per square mile), and have high concentrations of affluent executives and professionals in business, finance, and education; they also have higher than average concentrations of upscale immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Middle East. City neighborhoods are typically filled with dualincome families and retired empty nesters living near the urban core; some are welleducated, and many find work in management and professional occupations. Suburban neighborhoods are dominantly mixtures of old and new money, with older children in the home (though some kid-centric households with elementary school age children are here as well); they typically find employment as executives and owning businesses. Exurban neighborhoods are filled with households that prefer to live away from the

101 Page 102 bustle of the urban core, but have pockets of affluence in their own right; they tend to be child-rearing, dual-income, families supported by professional and white-collar occupations. Geographical Distribution by Social Type The Social Type characterization for Houston study areas follows: Table 78. Percent Composition of Study Areas by Social Type Study Area City Suburb Urban Exurb %row Central City 11.8% 23.0% 64.0% 1.2% 100.0% Memorial 5.0% 38.6% 56.4% 0.0% 100.0% North 65.4% 21.2% 1.9% 11.5% 100.0% West 14.1% 65.4% 17.9% 2.6% 100.0% Southwest 4.2% 12.8% 83.0% 0.0% 100.0% Clear Lake 73.0% 10.8% 5.4% 10.8% 100.0% Ft. Bend 1.6% 70.5% 0.0% 27.8% 100.0% Other 9.1% 18.2% 63.6% 9.1% 100.0% Total 13.9% 28.4% 53.6% 4.1% 100.0% In summary, the overall Houston listed community as well as study areas of Central City, Memorial, Southwest and Other are dominantly of the Urban Social Type. Social Type City households dominate the study areas of North and Clear Lake. The West and Ft. Bend study areas have large components of Suburbanites. In like fashion, we can characterize each Social Type by percent composition of study area respondents:

102 Page 103 Table 79. Percent Composition of Social Types by Study Area Respondents Study Area City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Central City 17.3% 16.5% 24.3% 6.3% 20.4% Memorial 4.5% 17.4% 13.5% 0.0% 12.8% North 30.9% 4.9% 0.2% 18.8% 6.6% West 10.0% 22.8% 3.3% 6.3% 9.9% Southwest 10.9% 16.5% 56.5% 0.0% 36.5% Clear Lake 24.5% 1.8% 0.5% 12.5% 4.7% Ft. Bend 0.9% 19.2% 0.0% 53.1% 7.7% Other 0.9% 0.9% 1.7% 3.1% 1.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% We see that almost 37% of the study respondents emanate from the Southwest study area, and that the Southwest contains 11% of the City dwellers, 17% of the Suburbanites, 57% of the Urbanites, and 0% of the Exurbanites in the study. Indexing In analyzing the survey information using Social Types we will employ the use of indexes. Indexes allow the reader to quickly discern the relative scale of a variable or behavior of a Social Type subgroup compared to the community at large. For purposes of illustration, consider Table 80 below describing the rate of home ownership for each Social Type. Table 80. Owns Home by Social Type City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 76% 91% 83% 100% 85% Index Interpretation: Eighty-five percent of the respondents from the Houston listed community indicate they own their home, ranging by Social Type from a low of 76% (the index of 89 connotes the rate of home ownership is 11% below the listed community average) to a high of 100% (the index of 118 indicates the rate of home ownership is 18% above average for the listed community as a whole).

103 Page 104 Demographics and Internet Behavior Almost a third of City dwellers and Urbanites live in multifamily housing, a rate 2.5 times that found in the Suburbs: Table 81. Lives in Multifamily Housing Stock City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 30% 12% 31% 0% 24% index All Social Types have high, regular access to the Internet either through work or home accounts: Table 82. Has Regular Access to Internet City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 79% 88% 79% 89% 82% index And all Social Types are active users of the Internet, led by the City dwellers at a rate that even surpasses Suburbanites (historic heavy users of Internet services): Table 83. Logs On Internet at Least 1X per Day City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 82% 73% 75% 73% 75% Index Comfort with the conducting business over the Internet is equally high across all Social Types, indicating a level of familiarity with Web security protocols not typically found in older age cohorts:

104 Page 105 Table 84. Purchased a Product over the Internet City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 79% 74% 80% 72% 78% Index Distribution of Children Overall the counts of children (below the age of 18) are found in the same proportion by Social Type as households (e.g., City households are 14% of the listed community and they also have 14% of the total children). The distribution of children by age, however, does vary by Social Type. In Table 85 we see that Exurbanites, though small in number are over two times as likely to have at least one child present in the home and Urbanites are 20% less likely to have children present in the home: Table 85 Household has at Least one Child in the Home City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 39% 36% 26% 69% 32% index Further, the distribution of children by age varies by Social Types. Table 86 shows the heaviest concentrations of children ages are found in City and Exurban neighborhoods (16% above average). What children Urbanites do have are concentrated in the elementary ages (6-11), while the heaviest concentration of children for the Suburbs is in the pre-school age range (less than 6 years old).

105 Page 106 Table 86 Age Distribution of Children by Social Type Ages City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl w/kids pct comp % 53% 47% 60% 52% Index pct comp % 37% 50% 40% 43% Index pct comp age 5 or less 23% 36% 32% 40% 32% Index pct comp has children 39% 36% 26% 69% 32% Index note: households can appear in multiple categories Jewish Education While over eighty percent (83%) of the respondents experienced some form of Jewish education as a child, the type of experience varied dramatically by Social Type and may have great explanatory power in understanding parents own views of educating their children. For example, City dwellers are 6% less likely to have had any Jewish education as a child, twenty four percent (24%) less likely to have had a Jewish Day School experience, and 26% less likely to have continued their Jewish education past the age of 13; simultaneously, they are almost ten percent (9%) less likely to agree that providing one s children a Jewish education is very important and the least likely to have participated in ongoing adult Jewish education..

106 Page 107 Table 87 Respondents' Early Jewish Education As a child, attended: City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Hebrew Sunday School 43% 53% 42% 43% 45% Index Afternoon School 17% 16% 19% 43% 18% Index Jewish Day School 10% 13% 15% 0% 13% Index None 22% 13% 18% 14% 17% Index Yes, any form 78% 87% 82% 86% 83% Index Table 88 Respondents' Early Jewish Education Extended Past 13 Years of Age City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 43% 57% 63% 50% 58% index Table 89 Providing One's Children a Jewish Education is Very Impt City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 77% 90% 88% 63% 85% index Table 90 Participated in Jewish Studies or Lectures (last 3 years) City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 32% 45% 56% 53% 49% index

107 Page 108 Marital Status and Parents Marital status by Social Type varies considerably, with strong concentrations of single head of households in City neighborhoods due to a lower than expected marriage rate and much higher rates of widowed. Table 91 Marital Status by Social Type status City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl pct married 61% 72% 61% 74% 65% index pct divorced 10% 12% 12% 11% 11% index pct widowed 19% 9% 15% 4% 13% index pct never married 6% 7% 11% 17% 9% index Some conclusions can be drawn on the rate of assimilation of Jewish listed households by looking at parentage and generational influences. For example, City dwellers are ten percent (10%) more likely to have no parents born in the USA than average, and Urbanites are about ten percent (11%) more likely to have both parents be USA born. This would indicate that more recent migrants settle into the City neighborhood types and then through successive generations migrate to Urban and Suburban settings. Table 91a Number of Parents Born in USA status City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl none 33% 27% 31% 35% 30% index one 56% 57% 51% 66% 54% index two 11% 16% 18% 18% 16% index Care for elderly dependents seems to be concentrated in the Suburban and Exurban Social Types, perhaps because they have higher propensities of parents born in the USA.

108 Page 109 Table 92 Elder Dependent Living in Houston City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 10% 11% 9% 13% 10% index Household Incomes and Educational Attainment, Higher education is completed more often by Urbanites and Exurbanites, with City dwellers completing at least a bachelor s degree at a rate eight percent (8%) below average: Table 93 Attained at Least a Bachelors Degree City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 63% 67% 71% 88% 69% index In addition to educational attainment, affluence depends on the distribution of household income. Household incomes for the listed Jewish community in Houston have a very specific pattern: Table 94 Distribution of Household Income by Social Type Household Income City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl less than $50,000 22% 13% 20% 18% 18% index $50,000-$99,999 26% 26% 26% 38% 26% index $100,000-$200,000 15% 18% 16% 31% 17% index $200,000+ 4% 13% 9% 0% 9% index Table 94 shows City dwellers are twenty percent (20%) more likely to have incomes less than $50,000; conversely they are almost sixty percent (59%) less likely to have incomes

109 Page 110 in excess of $200,000. Higher incomes concentrate in the Suburban and Exurban Social Types, with the Urban dwellers possessing a distribution of incomes just about the rate displayed by the entire listed community. Interestingly, as the City respondents not only have lower distributions of income they also express a general feeling that they are not as financially secure as their peers. Table 95 Self-Perception of Financial Security self reported: City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl greatly secure 10% 19% 14% 25% 15% index adequately secure 31% 36% 37% 13% 35% index somewhat secure 25% 25% 20% 63% 23% index minimally or not secure 26% 13% 21% 0% 20% index City dwellers are over thirty percent (32%) less likely to describe their financial security as greatly secure while Suburban dwellers are twenty-five percent (25%) more likely to feel greatly secure. Likewise, City Social Types are thirty-four percent (34%) more likely to judge their financial security as minimally secure or not secure. Their Urban counterparts also express concern over their future fiscal viability, reporting almost ten percent (9%) more frequently their future is minimally/not secure. In addition to City dwellers general feeling of concern over their fiscal health, their perception of their physical health is also of concern. Table 96 shows that City Social Types are two and one-half times (250%) more likely to describe their health as very unhealthy compared to their peers no other Social Type even comes close. Urban and Exurban Social Types are more likely to describe their health as very healthy compared to others. Table 96 Self-Perception of Health versus Peers self reported: City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl very unhealthy 9% 2% 2% 0% 3% Index very healthy 35% 51% 54% 63% 50% Index

110 Page 111 Political Behaviors Social Types behave very differently along political dimensions. Suburban Social Types are 22% less likely to vote in all elections and 13% less likely to communicate their views to an elected official but when they do they are 24% more likely to communicate on Jewish/Israel issues. City dwellers are slightly more likely to vote every chance they get (6% over the average) and 23% more likely to communicate to elected officials but when they do they are very unlikely to bring up matters related to Jews (80% less than average). Urban and Exurban Social Types tend to be more active than average across all political dimensions including contributing both money and labor (see table 97). Table 97 Political Activism self reported: City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl vote in all elections 60% 44% 62% 69% 57% Index contributed money to a candidate 36% 38% 44% 53% 41% Index worked for a candidate 20% 12% 22% 50% 20% Index communicated your views to an elected official 56% 40% 47% 53% 46% Index about a Jewish or Israel issue 7% 44% 43% 0% 35% Index Jewish Attitudes Having a household member visit Israel is directly correlated to high emotional attachments to Israel, with Suburbanites expressing the greatest levels of affinity: Table 98 Household Member has Visited Israel City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 54% 63% 60% 50% 60% index

111 Page 112 Table 99 Extremely to Very Emotionally Attached to Israel City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 60% 66% 64% 49% 63% index That same affinity manifests itself in respondents agreement that Jews in the USA and Israel share a common fate: Table 100 Agree: Jews in Israel and USA Share Common Fate City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 24% 27% 26% 29% 26% Index Rates of experience with anti-semitism are highest in the Exurbs, where Jews find themselves mostly isolated from other Jewish households and friendships: Table 101 Personally Experienced Anti-Semitism in last 5 Years City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 25% 22% 21% 50% 23% Index Table 102 All or Most of Friends / Social Acquaintances are Jewish City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 38% 55% 55% 38% 52% index Table 103

112 Page 113 Type of Anti-Semitism Experienced in Last 5 Years City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Personally threatened by a known anti-semitic 35% 22% 37% 25% 32% Index Unfavorably singled out as Jewish in personal relationship 29% 13% 26% 25% 23% Index Unfavorably singled out as Jewish in social relationship 53% 52% 48% 25% 49% Index Table 104 Strongly Agree / Agree Anti-Semitism is a Problem City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl in the USA 64% 79% 75% 69% 74% index in Houston 81% 72% 70% 100% 73% index Synagogue Membership and Denominational Affinity Denominational affinity shows distinct Social Type patterns. Of note is that while Orthodox affinity has dropped remarkably from one generation to the present, it maintains a relatively stronger hold on Urbanite households than their peers Table 105 Denominational Membership by Social Type City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Reform 52% 44% 41% 72% 44% Index Conservative 36% 42% 38% 24% 38% Index Orthodox 6% 4% 8% 0% 6% Index

113 Page 114 Table 106 Parents Denominational Membership by Social Type City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Reform 27% 31% 30% 71% 31% index Conservative 32% 41% 31% 0% 33% index Orthodox 29% 17% 23% 29% 22% index Synagogue membership has decreased overall from one generation to the next, but with relative gains in affining City dwellers to the membership roles. Table 107 Currently Dues Paying Member of a Synagogue City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 75% 72% 71% 79% 72% index Table 108 Family Belonged to Synagogue as a Child City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 68% 78% 84% 69% 78% index Jewish Observances Lighting the Sabbath candles still has strong attraction to Urbanites, who are 13% more likely to always observe. Suburbanites and Exurbanites are the most likely to never observe this Jewish tradition:

114 Page 115 Table 109 Light Sabbath Candles on Friday Night Frequency City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Always 21% 18% 26% 25% 23% index Usually 16% 15% 13% 25% 14% index Sometimes 31% 38% 31% 38% 33% index Never 32% 29% 30% 13% 30% index Exurb dwellers are the most likely to hold or attend a Passover Seder, fast at Yom Kippur, and light Hanukkah candles. They are also the most prone to participate in the secular holiday of Christmas with a festive tree. Table 110 Held or Attended Passover Seder Last Year City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 81% 86% 90% 100% 88% index Table 111 Do Not Keep a Kosher Home City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 78% 82% 67% 88% 73% index Table 112 Light Hanukkah Candles at Least One Night City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 92% 91% 89% 92% 90% index

115 Page 116 Table 113 Personally Fasted Last Yom Kippur City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 49% 61% 63% 75% 60% index Table 114 Had a Christmas Tree Last Year City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 14% 7% 8% 23% 9% index Table 115 Have a Mezuzah on Front Door City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 77% 76% 79% 75% 78% index Affiliation Not belonging to the Jewish Community Center does not seem to inhibit household participation in JCC programming. In most cases the rates of attendance versus membership are almost double. Table 116 Belong to JCC City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 19% 19% 22% 22% 21% Index

116 Page 117 Table 117 Household Member has Attended JCC Program City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 45% 50% 51% 31% 49% Index Reasons given for not joining the JCC vary by Social Type. Urbanites express lack of need almost twenty percent above the average; Suburbanites are more prone to claim the distance is too great. Interestingly, the City dwellers who are more prone to voice concerns over their financial security do not cite cost as the issue but distance. Table 118 Reasons for Not Joining the JCC City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl No need for Services Offered 9% 38% 42% 28% 35% index Distance from Home 59% 32% 12% 82% 27% index Cost 15% 17% 30% 8% 23% index Table 119 Currently Belong to a Health Club City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 27% 35% 35% 38% 34% index Philanthropy The brand recognition of the Jewish Federation is universal across all Social Types:

117 Page 118 Table 120 Has Seen or Heard of the Jewish Federation of Greater Houston City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 91% 93% 94% 88% 93% Index Federation brand equity is strongest with Suburbanites, who claim a positive impression of the organization five percent more often than the average. Negative equity is most often expressed by Urbanites almost twenty percent (20%) higher than average. Table 121 Impression of the Houston Jewish Federation City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Positive 57% 59% 55% 57% 57% index Neutral 37% 31% 34% 43% 34% index Negative 2% 5% 6% 0% 5% index Contact efficacy and strategies by the Federation into Social Types varies considerably. City dwellers are thirteen percent (13%) less likely to claim they have ever been contacted, and when they are the telephone is the medium of choice (23% more frequent than average). Even so, City dwellers impression of the contact is generally positive (5% more likely than average).

118 Page 119 Table 122 Contact by Jewish Federation City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Ever Contacted? 53% 60% 63% 75% 61% Index by telephone 64% 52% 49% 50% 52% Index by mail 33% 38% 36% 50% 37% Index in person 0% 5% 4% 0% 4% Index Positive Impression 53% 43% 54% 33% 50% Index Negative Impression 8% 8% 10% 0% 9% Index Contributions to the Federation follow closely what New Sources has discerned for over four years. The most frequent donors are found in the Suburbs and Urban settings, with growth in gifts over the last three years concentrated in the Urban donors (15% more likely to have increased their gift). Table 123 Contributions to the Jewish Federation City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Contribution made by HH 35% 47% 47% 41% 45% index Yr Contributions Same 68% 58% 54% 67% 57% index Yr Contributions Increased 21% 25% 34% 0% 29% index Yr Contributions Decreased 0% 4% 7% 0% 5% index Preferred disbursement of the federated funds changes by Social Type. Urban and Exurban dwellers are more likely to call for a greater share being spent locally. Suburbanites are 20% more likely to call for an even share.

119 Page 120 Table 124 How Should Fedn Funds be Allocated Locally / Israel? City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl More Locally 37% 36% 42% 63% 40% Index More for Israel 9% 8% 7% 0% 8% Index Evenly 31% 35% 27% 13% 29% Index Concentrations of donor households by gift level generally follow affluence cues in the Social Types. City dwellers have relatively high shares in the categories under $1,000; Suburbanites and Urbanites dominate the gift levels above %5,000. Table 125 Pct Contributing Last Year to Jewish Federation by Gift Level City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl $1-$99 32% 21% 26% 42% 26% index $ % 32% 28% 48% 31% index $500-$999 11% 6% 11% 0% 9% index $1,000-$2,499 3% 9% 10% 0% 9% index $2,500-$4,999 3% 3% 2% 0% 2% index $5,000-$9,999 0% 1% 3% 0% 2% index $10,000+ 0% 6% 3% 0% 3% index While the Federation is the most cited charity in the study, non-jewish causes such as the American Cancer Society and the American Red Cross maintain a significant share of donations as well.

120 Page 121 Table 126 Most Frequently Cited Organizations Receiving Donations City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Jewish Federation 9% 11% 13% 17% 12% Index Hadassah 5% 6% 5% 4% 5% Index Amer. Cancer Society 3% 3% 3% 17% 3% Index Amer. Red Cross 3% 5% 2% 9% 3% Index Total contributions also vary strongly along affluence lines contained in the Social Types, and the distribution of funds across Jewish and non-jewish charities is not surprising. For example, Exurb dwellers feel stronger affinity to non-jewish charities (over two times the average rate). Exurbanites are also the least likely Social Type to agree that supporting Jewish agencies is a very important part of one s Jewishness. Table 127 Total Contributions Last Year Excluding Dues, Tuition, Israel Bonds City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl $1-$99 10% 6% 7% 11% 7% Index $ % 19% 19% 26% 20% Index $500-$999 36% 38% 34% 2% 35% Index $1,000-$2,499 17% 16% 17% 33% 17% Index $2,500-$4,999 6% 10% 11% 4% 10% Index $5,000-$9,999 6% 4% 6% 4% 5% Index $10,000+ 1% 8% 5% 19% 5% Index

121 Page 122 Table 128 Distribution of Donations City Suburb Urban Exurb %ttl Mostly Jewish 47% 49% 49% 38% 48% Index Mostly non-jewish 28% 31% 26% 63% 29% Index About the Same 15% 11% 14% 0% 13% Index Table 129 Supporting Jewish Organization is Very Impt Part of Jewishness City Suburb Urban Exurb ttl % within Social Type 35% 40% 38% 13% 37% Index

122 Summary Lifestyle Descriptions PRIZM Cluster Narratives

123 Copyright 2000 by Claritas Inc. All Rights Reserved. The ideas, concepts and information contained in this document, and the manner in which this information is presented, are proprietary trade secrets owned by Claritas Inc. and may not be used or duplicated without authorization. The reading of this document constitutes an agreement with the foregoing and an understanding to be bound by its terms and conditions. Reproduction or disclosure of these materials in whole or in part without the prior written approval of Claritas Inc. is expressly prohibited by law. Warning! This document is protected under Federal Copyright Laws, Title 17 of U.S. Code. Under the copyright laws, unauthorized users may be subject to civil liability including an injunction, actual damages, infringer s profits, and statutory damages of up to $100,000 per work infringed, and criminal penalties including a fine of up to $25,000 and/or up to one year s imprisonment. PRIZM and Claritas are registered trademarks of Claritas Inc. The 62 PRIZM cluster nicknames (e.g., Blue Blood Estates, Big Sky Families, Country Squires ) are trademarks of Claritas Inc.

124 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 CLUSTER DESCRIPTIONS S1 Elite Suburbs - Clusters U1 Urban Uptown - Clusters C1 Second City Society - Clusters T1 Landed Gentry - Clusters S2 The Affluentials - Clusters S3 Inner Suburbs - Clusters U2 Urban Midscale - Clusters C2 Second City Centers - Clusters T2 Exurban Blues - Clusters R1 Country Families - Clusters U3 Urban Cores - Clusters C3 Second City Blues - Clusters T3 Working Towns - Clusters R2 Heartlanders - Clusters R3 Rustic Living - Clusters i

125 Introduction About Neighborhood Lifestyle Segmentation The social science of neighborhoods and their structures is the foundation of the marketing science of geodemography. Geodemographic (neighborhood segmentation) systems developed from data sources such as the U.S. Census work because the old adage birds of a feather flock together still rings true in America today people with similar cultural backgrounds, needs, and perspectives naturally gravitate toward each other. People choose to live in neighborhoods that offer affordable advantages and compatible lifestyles. These neighborhoods can be grouped into clusters that exhibit similar demographic and behavioral characteristics. These neighborhood clusters then can be used to identify and locate marketing targets. Geodemographic systems are stable and reliable because the characteristics that define a neighborhood change slowly. The stability of a neighborhood comes from its fixed features: location, housing, transportation, schools, places of worship, and employment. Self-organization and self-perpetuation also figure into the stability of a neighborhood. These tangible forces and assets may include: zoning laws job pool housing stock transportation networks commercial infrastructure public and private schools land values Another factor that defines neighborhoods is the perception of its forces/assets. These may include: economic opportunities language race and ethnicity culture local politics ambiance Mobility is a third factor that defines a neighborhood, since lifestage changes often cause people to move. Lifestage changes include: leaving the nest being promoted graduating from college emptying the nest getting married retiring having children People will also move when their neighborhood no longer provides a good match in terms of affordability and needs. When relocating due to a job transfer, people usually find a neighborhood that is very much like the one they just left. New neighbors will very likely resemble the old neighbors when they first arrive; an unchanged neighborhood attracts similar types of people. Specific events can significantly change the characteristics of a neighborhood. These can include: new construction in or around the neighborhood major regional economic adjustments transition from households with children to ones that are empty nests rezoning dramatically rising/falling land values Neighborhoods are a key to consumer predictability because: People need to feel as though they belong. Neighborhoods have an image and attract certain types of people. They result is shared behavior patterns which we refer to as keeping up with the Joneses. PRIZM Cluster Narratives 1

126 How Is PRIZM Created? In the PRIZM lifestyle segmentation system, every U.S. neighborhood is defined according to sixty-two distinct types or clusters. Each U.S. neighborhood is assigned to one of these PRIZM clusters according to the current year s demographic projections. The sixty-two PRIZM clusters reflect the variety of opportunities and influences that impact neighborhoods. Claritas uses factor analysis of census data to uncover the demographic and lifestyle variables that explain the differences between customer profiles. Neighborhood type is not a single measurable entry but is derived from a number of directly measurable elements: Objective - Identify the key demographics and lifestyles that define unique neighborhood types. Method - Use factor analysis to find the most meaningful data variables; use cluster analysis, classification, and regression trees to define neighborhood types. Result - These statistical methods explain much of the variation between neighborhood types. Neighborhood Variables Most of the differences that define neighborhoods are determined by: Social Rank - income, employment, and educational attainment Household Composition - age, gender, and family structure Mobility - length of residence Ethnicity - race, foreign birth, ancestry, and language Urbanization - variations in urban, suburban, and rural populations and densities Housing - own, rent, value, age, number of housing units, and more Once the factor analysis is complete, PRIZM s sixty-two clusters are tested, refined, and updated using a variety of public and private data sources: ADVO Newspapers City and regional planning agencies U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Geographic Data Technologies U.S. Postal Service National Center for Health Statistics Utility companies and more Behavioral tests and enhancements to PRIZM tap millions of consumer purchase records covering auto purchases, magazine subscriptions, real estate transactions, aggregate consumer credit, direct marketing response, and consumer expenditures. The resulting system provides a flexible framework for decision making that is consistent from one level of geography to another, which is unique to Claritas. For instance, the PRIZM assignments for the 5-digit ZIP Code can be translated instantly and accurately into assignments for block groups, tracts or ZIP+4s. Standard PRIZM Social Groups The sixty-two PRIZM clusters are grouped into 15 social groups indicated by the degree of urbanization, from the rural countryside to urban high-rises. The degree of affluence or socioeconomic status (such as, income, education, home value, and occupation) spans the lower, middle, and upscale markets. For example, at the top of the affluence and density scale are the U1 big-city urban clusters: Urban Gold Coast, Money & Brains, Young Literati, Bohemian Mix and American Dreams. At the bottom of the affluence and density scale are the R3 rural clusters: Blue Highways, Rustic Elders, Back Country Folks, Scrub Pine Flats, and Hard Scrabble. The following is a brief description of each PRIZM social group and the clusters within it. For more detailed information, call PRIZM Cluster Narratives 2

127 S1 - Elite Suburbs The five clusters of Group S1 rank in the first and second deciles of Claritas s education and affluence scale, making this one of the nation s most affluent social groups. S1 clusters have high incomes, educations, investments, and spending. High concentrations of wealthy Asian immigrants populate these clusters. Beyond these shared patterns, there are marked differences. 01 Blue Blood Estates Elite, Super-Rich Families Established executives, professionals, and old money heirs live in America s wealthiest suburbs. They are accustomed to privilege and live luxuriously. One-tenth of this group are multi-millionaires. Elite (1) Age Groups: 45-54, Predominantly White, High Asian 02 Winner s Circle Executive Suburban Families These new money families live in expensive mini-mansions in major metropolitan suburbs. They are well-educated executives and professionals who are married with teenagers. Big producers and big spenders, Winner s Circle families enjoy globetrotting. Wealthy (2) Age Groups: 45-54, Predominantly White, High Asian 03 Executive Suites Upscale White-Collar Couples Executive Suites singles and married couples have bought their first houses and condos. They have more children than the other clusters in the S1 Social Group. Although they are less affluent than Winner s Circle, they are equally ambitious, well educated, and competent, but ten years younger. Affluent (8) Age Groups: 45-54, Predominantly White, High Asian 04 Pools and Patios Established Empty Nesters Empty-nester executive and professional couples are living the good life in their post-child years. Their dual incomes support rich, active lives filled with travel, leisure activities, and entertainment. Many live in the densely populated Northeast corridor of the United States. Affluent (9) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White, High Asian 05 Kids and Cul-de-Sacs Upscale Suburban Families Similar to Executive Suites and Pools and Patios, Cluster 05 ranks high on all affluence measures. Although married couples with children are still predominant in this cluster, some married couples without children are moving into Kids and Cul-de-Sacs. These suburban folks lead busy lives centered around family activities. Affluent (10) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, Predominantly White, High Asian PRIZM Cluster Narratives 3

128 U1 - Urban Uptown Group U1 ranks as the nation s second most affluent social group. Major market concentrations are dense with over 94 percent of total households in the top 10 television markets. For over two decades, these clusters have had high concentrations of executives and professionals in business, finance, entertainment, and education. More recently, U1 clusters have absorbed a wave of upscale immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. 06 Urban Gold Coast Elite Urban Singles The highly educated professional couples and singles of Cluster 06 live in large urban apartment and condo complexes. They are found in densely populated areas such as New York City. Very few of these busy, affluent Urban Gold Coast-ers have children or own cars. Affluent (3) Age Groups: 45-54, Predominantly White, High Asian 07 Money and Brains Sophisticated Urban Fringe Couples Cluster 07 is a mix of family types: singles, married couples with children, and married couples without children. These families own their homes in upscale neighborhoods near cities. Dual incomes provide luxuries, travel, and entertainment. Affluent (5) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White, High Asian 08 Young Literati Upscale Urban Singles and Couples Although less affluent than Money and Brains, Cluster 08 is better educated. Young Literati executives, professionals, and students live in apartments, condos, and townhouses near private urban universities. They have few children, leaving them free to lead active lives filled with travel, art, and fitness. Upper Middle (6) Age Groups: 25-34, Predominantly White, High Asian 09 American Dreams Established Urban Immigrant Families These immigrants and descendants of multi-cultural backgrounds in multi-racial, multi-lingual neighborhoods typify the American Dream. Married couples with and without children and single parents are affluent from working hard at multiple trades and public service jobs. They are high school graduates with some college education. Their big families are unusual for Social Group U1. Upper Middle (14) Age Groups: Mixed Ethnically Diverse 10 Bohemian Mix Bohemian Singles Dominated by mobile, high-educated singles, Bohemian Mix is an eclectic group of executives, students, artists, and writers who prefer to live in rented high-rises. Very few children are found in this multi-racial cluster. Middle (17) Age Groups: 25-34, Ethnically Diverse PRIZM Cluster Narratives 4

129 C1-2 nd City Society The three clusters of the C1 Social Group top the economic scale in hundreds of America s second and satellite cities. They are highly educated with big incomes. Most own their homes and are executives and professionals in local business, financial, health, legal, communications, and wholesale industries. They are far more conservative than their upscale S1 peers who live in the suburbs of major metropolitan areas. 11 Second City Elite Upscale Executive Families The movers and shakers of America s smaller cities are the prototypes for Second City Elite. Although most are married without children, some have teenagers. They hold professional and white-collar management positions, and many have attended college or are college graduates. Affluent (7) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 12 Upward Bound Young, Upscale White-Collar Families Upward Bound families are computer literate, earn dual incomes, and fly frequently. Most are married with kids and live in new, single-family homes. These high school and college graduates work in management or professional occupations. Upper Middle (13) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, Predominantly White, High Asian 13 Gray Power Affluent Retirees in Sunbelt Cities As the population ages, this cluster is increasing. Found in retirement communities across the United States, these affluent retirees are playing golf, monitoring their health, and tending their hefty investment portfolios. They are married couples or singles with high school and college educations. Middle (16) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White PRIZM Cluster Narratives 5

130 T1 - Landed Gentry The four clusters of the T1 Social Group cover a vast amount of American geography. T1 is the fourth most affluent group. Large, multi-income families with school-age kids, headed by well-educated executives, professionals, and techies dominate this group. These clusters are found far outside the major metropolitan areas in America s most spectacular coastal areas and uplands. 14 Country Squires Elite Exurban Families Yearning to escape urban stress, Country Squires have moved away from our major cities to the outer suburbs to find tranquility in the country. They are well-educated professionals and whitecollar managers who are married with children. Fourth in affluence, this cluster has big bucks in the boondocks. Wealthy (4) Age Groups: 45-54, Predominantly White 15 God s Country Executive Exurban Families Like Country Squires, the large families of Cluster 15 prefer to live away from the city. They are well-educated professionals or white-collar managers. Dual incomes support an active lifestyle that is centered around family and outdoor activities. Affluent (11) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, Predominantly White 16 Big Fish, Small Pond Small-Town Executive Families Married couples with and without children dominate this conservative, family-oriented cluster. They are very similar to God s Country, but slightly less affluent. Most are high school graduates and have taken some college classes. These captains of local industry enjoy investing in their homes and vacationing by car in the United States. Upper Middle (18) Age Groups: 45-54, Predominantly White 17 Greenbelt Families Small-Town Executive Families Cluster 17 families are younger and less affluent than some of the other clusters living in America s smaller cities. These heavily mortgaged married couples have lots of children. Because of their heavy debt, they depend on family entertainment and outdoor sports for recreation. Upper Middle (19) Age Groups: 35-44, Predominantly White PRIZM Cluster Narratives 6

131 S2 - The Affluentials The five clusters of the S2 Social Group represent the upper-middle income suburbs of major metropolitan areas. S2 is the fifth most affluent group. These clusters have above-average incomes and rentals; an eclectic mix of homes, condos, and apartments; a broad spectrum of business, technical, and public service jobs; and daily commutes, but otherwise are very different. 18 Young Influentials Upwardly Mobile Singles and Couples The high-tech educated folks of Cluster 18 have managerial and professional jobs and live in urban high-rises. Although many of their contemporaries have married and settled down, these childless, live-together couples prefer their sophisticated urban lifestyle, supported by dual incomes. They are the last of the Yuppies. Upper Middle (12) Age Groups: 25-34, Predominantly White, High Asian 19 New Empty Nests Upscale Suburban Fringe Couples Hard work in professions and industries has rewarded New Empty Nest-ers with the affluence that comes from double incomes. Most of these married couples are in their post-child years, are far more conservative than Young Influentials, and live in the Northeastern and Northwestern United States. Upper Middle (15) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 20 Boomers and Babies Young White-Collar Suburban Families Cluster 20 ranks second of all PRIZM clusters for married couples with children and first in total households with children, most of whom are pre-schoolers. Boomers and Babies folks are found mostly in the Western United States, where they are executives and techies in various fields. Upper Middle (21) Age Groups: Under 18, 25-34, Predominantly White, High Asian, High Hispanic 21 Suburban Sprawl Young Mid-Scale Suburban Couples & Singles The native and foreign-born people in Cluster 21 have educated themselves and are now working as executives, administrators, and technicians. Their diligence has enabled them to leave their multi-racial, multi-lingual neighborhoods in America s major metropolitan areas and move to the suburbs. Middle (24) Age Groups: 25-34, Ethnically Diverse 22 Blue Chip Blues Upscale Blue-Collar Families Topping the blue-collar ladder, the dual income, high school-educated Blue Chip Blues parents head large suburban families. During the past two decades, their kids grew up and left, and bluecollar employment opportunities declined sharply. A small core of Blue Chip Blues remains, concentrated in the Great Lakes area. Middle (30) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, Predominantly White PRIZM Cluster Narratives 7

132 S3 - Inner Suburbs The four clusters of the S3 Social Group comprise the middle income suburbs of major metropolitan areas, straddling the United States average. Otherwise, the clusters are markedly different. Two clusters have more collegeeducated, white-collar workers; two have more high school-educated blue-collar workers; two are young; one is old; one is mixed; but all show distinct, variant patterns of employment, lifestyle, and regional concentration. 23 Upstarts and Seniors Middle-Income Empty Nesters Cluster 23 shows that young people and seniors are very similar if they are employable, single, and childless. Upstarts and Seniors have average educations and incomes in business, finance, retail, health and public service. Preferring condos and apartments, they live in the Sunbelt and the West. Middle (28) Age Groups: 25-54, 65+ Predominantly White 24 New Beginnings Young Mobile City Singles Concentrated in the boomtowns of the Southeast, the Southwest, and the Pacific coast, New Beginnings is a magnet for many young, well-educated minorities who are making fresh starts. Some are divorced, and many are single parents. They live in multi-unit rentals and work in a variety of low-level, white-collar jobs. Middle (29) Age Groups: Ethnically Diverse 25 Mobility Blues Young Blue-Collar/Service Families These blue-collar counterparts of New Beginnings are young, ethnically mixed, and very mobile. Many are Hispanics and have large families with children. These breadwinners work in transportation, industry, public service, and the military. Middle (41) Age Groups: Under 18, Ethnically Diverse, High Hispanic 26 Gray Collars Aging Couples in Inner Suburbs The highly skilled blue-collar workers of Cluster 26 weathered the economic downturn of America s industrial areas and now enjoy a resurgence of employment. Their kids grew up and left, but the Gray Collars stayed in the Great Lakes Rust Belt. Middle (42) Age Groups: 65+ Ethnically Diverse PRIZM Cluster Narratives 8

133 U2 - Urban Midscale The five clusters of the U2 Social Group are the backbone of the middle-income, urban-fringe neighborhoods in America s major metropolitan areas. Group U2 is also highly concentrated, with 75 percent of the total households in the top five television markets and 96 percent in the top 25. Group U2 averages below the affluence mean. The U2 clusters have high potential densities and ethnic diversity, use public transportation, and survive all the perks and risks of urban life. 27 Urban Achievers Mid-Level, White-Collar Urban Couples Cluster 27 is the most affluent of the U2 clusters. Often found near urban public universities, these neighborhoods are ethnically diverse with a blend of youth and age. Single students mix easily with older professionals who work in business, finance and public service. Middle (22) Age Groups: 25-44, 65+ Predominantly White, High Asian, High Hispanic 28 Big City Blend Middle-Income Immigrant Families The most ethnically mixed of the U2 clusters, Big City Blend has many Hispanics, Asians, and other foreign-born immigrants. Less affluent than Urban Achievers, Cluster 29 folks have large families and work in white- and blue-collar jobs. They live in older, stable, high-density urban rowhouse neighborhoods. Middle (32) Age Groups: Under 14, Ethnically Diverse 29 Old Yankee Rows Empty-Nest, Middle-Class Families More languages are spoken in Cluster 29 than in the other U2 clusters. New Asian and Latin American immigrants live in these magnet neighborhoods concentrated in the Northeast. Although they have the same mix of white-collar and blue-collar jobs as Big City Blend, they are less affluent. They tend to be single and live in rental multi-unit apartment complexes. Middle (37) Age Groups: 25-44, 65+ Ethnically Diverse 30 Mid-City Mix African-American Singles and Families Like the other clusters in U2, Mid-City Mix is above-average in ethnic diversity with a similar mix of service, white-collar and blue-collar employment. Living in urban rowhouse neighborhoods, they are found in the Northeast and around the Great Lakes. Cluster 30 is threequarters Black and has a high incidence of college enrollment. Middle (46) Age Groups: Under 18, Predominantly Black, High Hispanic 31 Latino America Hispanic Middle-Class Families With the nation s highest index for foreign-born immigrants, Cluster 31 represents a giant step in achievement for the young families of Latino America. They have many children and are concentrated in New York, Miami, Chicago, and the Southwest. Although they live in rented houses and have blue-collar jobs, they are moving up and are college-bound. Middle (44) Age Groups: Under 18, Predominantly Hispanic PRIZM Cluster Narratives 9

134 C2-2 nd City Centers The five clusters of the C2 Social Group describe the midscale, middle-density satellite cities surrounding major metropolitan areas, as well as many smaller second-tier cities. The C2 clusters have a lower cost of living and are generally better off than their peers in the U2 Social Group. With some exceptions, these clusters are predominantly white. Otherwise, they differ in age, marriage, education, occupation, and lifestyle. 32 Middleburg Managers Mid-Level White-Collar Families These business executives, professionals, city officials, bankers, and retailers are the solid citizens of America s smaller cities. Half of Middleburg Managers are older and married with grown children. The other half are young and single with no children. Thanks to their aboveaverage incomes, they can pursue sports and leisure activities in clubs. Middle (20) Age Groups: 35-44, 65+ Predominantly White 33 Boomtown Singles Middle-Income Young Singles Young people in the fast-growing smaller cities in the South, Midwest, and West fall into Cluster 33. They are young professionals and techies in public service and private industries who live in multi-unit rentals. They like music and outdoor activities such as boating and skiing. Middle (27) Age Groups: 18-24, 25-34, Predominantly White 34 Starter Families Young, Middle-Class Families Unlike most of their contemporaries, Starter Families opted for early marriage and parenthood. Cluster 34 folks have large families and work in blue-collar jobs. The solo parents in this cluster have young children. They prefer living in the natural beauty of the Pacific coast areas, the Rockies, and the states bordering Canada. Middle (36) Age Groups: Under 18, Mixed, High Hispanic 35 Sunset City Blues Empty Nests in Aging Industrial Cities Cluster 35 is just as affluent as Starter Families, but they re older. At the end of their careers in police work, fire fighting, and other blue-collar occupations, Sunset City Blues are ready to retire. A few relocate to the mountains or to Florida, but most stick close to home near the Great Lakes and the Mohawk Valley. Lower Middle (39) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 36 Towns and Gowns College Town Singles Many college towns and university campus neighborhoods are divided into half locals (Towns) and half students (Gowns). Cluster 36 is primarily composed of year-olds on limited budgets and highly educated, but perhaps underpaid, professionals. Both of these groups have a taste for prestige products that are beyond their means. Lower Middle (31) Age Groups: 18-24, Predominantly White, High Asian PRIZM Cluster Narratives 10

135 T2 - Exurban Blues The five clusters of the T2 Social Group cover the midscale, low-density towns on the outskirts of all major metropolitan areas and second cities. Group T2 is comparable to the S3, U2, and C2 Social Groups. Three of these clusters are predominantly white, show an even age distribution, own their homes, are married, and are raising kids. 37 New Homesteaders Young Middle-Class Families More highly educated than the other clusters in the T2 Social Group, the New Homesteaders professionals and executives work in local service fields of administration, communications, health, and retail. The younger married couples have children. Life is homespun with a focus on crafts, camping, and sports. Middle (26) Age Groups: 35-44, 45-54, 65+ Predominantly White 38 Middle America Midscale Families in Midsize Towns Sitting just above the U.S. median household income, Cluster 38 is aptly named. These are family neighborhoods with many married couples. Busy with kids and dogs, they enjoy fast food, sports, fishing, camping, and watching television. Middle America families are found across the United States. Middle (33) Age Groups: Under 18, 35-44, Predominantly White 39 Red, White and Blues Small Town Blue-Collar Families Cluster 39 is more blue-collar and industrial and is less affluent than Middle America. They are skilled workers in mining, milling, manufacturing, and construction jobs. Concentrated in the industrial areas around the Great Lakes, the Appalachians, and the Western highlands, these folks love the outdoors. Middle (35) Age Groups: Mixed Predominantly White 40 Military Quarters GIs and Surrounding Off-Base Families Located on or near military bases, Cluster 40 appears around our principal harbors and other defense installations. Composed of military personnel living in group quarters, the demographics of Cluster 40 are atypical. Fully integrated with the highest index for adults under 35, Military Quarters folks like fast cars, action sports, and bars. Lower Middle (40) Age Groups: Under 14, 18-24, Ethnically Diverse PRIZM Cluster Narratives 11

136 R1 - Country Families Group R1 now rivals Social Groups S3, U2, C2, and T2 in midscale affluence and, thanks to lower living costs, suffers less poverty. Found in hundreds of small towns and remote exurbs, the group covers all but a few television markets. Composed of white, married couples, many with children, these country families work in industrial and agrarian occupations. They own their houses and mobile homes. 41 Big Sky Families Midscale Couples, Kids and Farmland Cluster 41 comprises well-paid craftsmen, machinists, and builders who live in scenic locales in New England, the Tidewater, the Great Lakes region, and the Rockies. Their family-centered lifestyles focus on hobbies, hunting, and boating. Most are high-school graduates or have attended college. Upper Middle (23) Age Groups: Under 18, Predominantly White 42 New Eco-topia Rural White- Blue-Collar/Farm Families Found in the pristine areas of the Northern Pacific, the Rockies, and northern New England, Cluster 42 is the only R1 cluster with above-average educations. New Eco-topia has an even mix of white-collar and blue-collar jobs. A high index of personal computer ownership reflects the high-tech industries in those pristine areas. Middle (25) Age Groups: 45-54, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 43 River City, USA Middle-Class Rural Families These solid, blue-collar folks in New England and the Mohawk Valley through the corn, grain, and dairy belts to the Pacific orchards are raising their children in single-family homes. Fourth of July parades and front porches are important to River City, USA. Most are high-school graduates or have attended college. Middle (34) Age Groups: Under 18, Predominantly White 44 Shotguns and Pickups Rural Blue-Collar Workers and Families Found in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Great Lakes, and the Piedmont industrial regions of the United States, Cluster 44 is the least affluent of the R1 clusters. They lead the group in bluecollar jobs. Most are married with school-age children. They are church-goers who also enjoy hunting, bowling, sewing, and attending auto races. Middle (43) Age Groups: Mixed Predominantly White PRIZM Cluster Narratives 12

137 U3 - Urban Cores With the nation s lowest incomes and highest poverty ratios, U3 is the least affluent social group. These clusters live in multi-racial, multi-lingual communities of dense, rented rowhouses and high-rise apartments. They have high indices for singles, solo parents with pre-school children, and unemployment. 45 Single City Blues Ethnically Mixed Urban Singles Cluster 45 is found mostly in Eastern mega-cities and in the West, and includes many singles. Often found near urban universities, Single City Blues hosts a fair number of students. This cluster is characterized by a mixture of races, few children, occupations in night trades, and transient lifestyles. Lower Middle (51) Age Groups: 25-34, 65+ Ethnically Diverse 46 Hispanic Mix Urban Hispanic Singles and Families The bilingual barrios concentrated in the Southwest, the Atlantic metro corridor, Texas, Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles, are home to Cluster 46. Large families with lots of small children live in these neighborhoods. They rank second in the percentage of foreign-born and first in transient immigration. Poor (60) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, Predominantly Hispanic, High Black, High Asian 47 Inner Cities Inner-City, Single Parent Families Concentrated in America s poorest neighborhoods in large eastern U.S. cities, these young, African-American single parents live in multi-unit rental complexes. High unemployment and public assistance are prevalent here. When work is available, they have service and blue-collar jobs. They have grade school and high school educations. Poor (61) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, Predominantly Black PRIZM Cluster Narratives 13

138 C3-2 nd City Blues The four clusters of the C3 Social Group cover the downtown neighborhoods of hundreds of second cities on the fringe of major metropolitan areas. With lower living costs, these clusters are more affluent than their big-city cousins in the U3 Social Group. Coupled with pockets of unemployment, broken homes, and solo parents, we also see a wide range of occupations including agrarian, clerical, retail, labor, transportation, public, and private sector services. 48 Smalltown Downtown Older Renters and Young Families Cluster 48 is made up of students and those looking for fresh starts and first employment. Smalltown Downtown neighborhoods are found mostly west of the Mississippi. Young singles in this cluster often live near city colleges and work in low-level, white-collar sales and technical jobs. Lower Middle (49) Age Groups: 18-24, 25-34, Predominantly White/Some Hispanic 49 Hometown Retired Low-Income, Older Singles and Couples At opposite ends of America and the age scale, Cluster 49 is found mostly in the Appalachians and central Florida, with a few pockets in the West. Hometown Retired is third in singles, second in ages 65 and over, and first in retirement. This cluster takes bus tours, collects stamps, and enjoys playing cards and chess. Lower Middle (52) Age Groups: 65+ Predominantly White 50 Family Scramble Low-Income Hispanic Families Although Cluster 50 is found in many markets, it is centered across the Southwest and Pacific areas. It ranks third in Hispanic population and has an above-average number of Native Americans. Ranked sixty-second in higher education, Cluster 50 shows all of the scars of poverty, but is managing through working in transport, labor, and service jobs. Lower Middle (52) Age Groups: Under 18, Predominantly Hispanic 51 Southside City African-American Service Workers The neighborhoods of Cluster 51 are scattered throughout the Southeast, the smaller Mississippi delta cities, the Gulf Coast, and the Atlantic states. Over 80 percent of its households are African-American. Ranked sixty-first in median household income, their low cost of living and jobs in labor and service keep these families afloat. Poor (62) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, Predominantly Black PRIZM Cluster Narratives 14

139 T3 - Working Towns The four clusters in the T3 Social Group, with thousands of remote exurbs and satellite towns, are found outside major metropolitan areas and second cities. T3 is considerably better off than the U3 and C3 Social Groups. The T3 clusters have lower education levels and incomes and work in blue-collar occupations. This group s population owns or rents single-family homes amid awesome scenery. They enjoy crafts and going to church. Otherwise, they are distinctly different. 52 Golden Ponds Retirement Town Seniors The scenic rustic towns and villages near coastal, mountain, valley, and lake areas coast to coast are where the Cluster 52 neighborhoods are found. Golden Ponds seniors have retired here to live in cottages among their country neighbors. They are not as urban or affluent as other retirees are. Lower Middle (38) Age Groups: 65+ Predominantly White 53 Rural Industria Low Income, Blue-Collar Families Low-cost, non-union labor proliferates in Cluster 53, the most industrial cluster of the T3 group. Hundreds of blue-collar mill towns on America s back roads are home to Rural Industria folks. This predominantly white cluster has an above-average index of Hispanic ancestry. Lower Middle (50) Age Groups: Under 18 Predominantly White, High Hispanic 54 Norma Rae-Ville Young Families, Bi-Racial Mill Towns Centered in the South, the Mississippi delta, the Gulf Coast, and the Atlantic states, Cluster 54 is the blue-collar labor pool for the nations clothing and home furnishing industries. With grade school and high school educations, many families in this bi-racial cluster live below the poverty level. Poor (54) Age Groups: Under 18, 18-24, Predominantly Black 55 Mines and Mills Older Families, Mine and Mill Towns As its name implies, Cluster 55 folks live in scenic splendor and work in America s mines and mills. Mines and Mills neighborhoods are in the Appalachians, across the Ozarks to Arizona, and up the Missouri River to the Montana coal fields. The population is older and mostly single with few children. Poor (56) Age Groups: 65+ Predominantly White PRIZM Cluster Narratives 15

140 R2 - Heartlanders The two clusters of the R2 Social Group describe the nation s agrarian heartland that is centered in the Great Plains, and in the South Central, Mountain and Pacific regions, with a few pockets in the East. These clusters are comparatively self-sufficient with a low cost of living. They are composed oflarge, multi-generation families living in low-density houses and mobile homes. They are a mix of fiercely independent Hispanics and Native Americans. 56 Agri-Business Rural Farm Town and Ranch Families Famous for very large families with lots of kids, countless animals, apple pie, and fishing, Cluster 56 stretches from Lake Michigan to the Pacific. Agri-Business occupations are farming, forestry, fishing, ranching, mining, and other blue-collar employment. Most of this cluster s individuals are high school graduates and have attended college. Middle (45) Age Groups: Under 18, Predominantly White 57 Grain Belt Farm Owners and Tenants Centered in the Great Plains and South Central section of the United States, life for Grain Belt folks is tied to the land and ruled by the weather. Mostly self-sufficient, family- and homecentered, these families are poor only in money. Lower Middle (57) Age Groups: Under 18, 55+ Predominantly White, High Hispanic, Some Native American PRIZM Cluster Narratives 16

141 R3 - Rustic Living The five clusters of the R3 Social Group describe thousands of remote country towns, villages, hamlets, and reservations scattered across the United States. Because these five clusters have lower-middle incomes and a low cost of living, they are a promising market. This group s married couples and elders share mobile homes, kids, and carpools. They work as craftsmen and laborers in agriculture, mining, transportation, and construction. 58 Blue Highways Moderate Blue-Collar/Farm Families On most maps, the interstates are colored red and the older highways are blue. Cluster 58 follows these remote roads through the mountains and along the coasts, deserts, and lake shores. Blue Highways families are young with lots of children. They hunt and fish, attend tractor pulls, and love country music and camping. Lower Middle (47) Age Groups: Under 18 Predominantly White, High Native American 59 Rustic Elders Low-Income, Older Rural Couples Cluster 59 is the third oldest cluster in the U.S. with the lowest incidence of children in Social Group R3. Rustic Elders are concentrated in the Great Plains and along the West Coast. Although life for folks in this cluster is pure country, there is a surprisingly high index for health walking, golf, boating, and volleyball. Lower Middle (48) Age Groups: 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 60 Back Country Folks Remote Rural/Town Families Centered in the Eastern uplands, Cluster 60 cuts a wide swath from the Pennsylvania Poconos to the Arkansas Ozarks. These are the most blue-collar neighborhoods in America. Centered in the Bible Belt, folks in these neighborhoods enjoy Christian and country music. Lower Middle (53) Age Groups: 6-17, 55-64, 65+ Predominantly White 61 Scrub Pine Flats Older African-American Farm Families Cluster 61 is found mainly in the coastal flatlands of the Atlantic and Gulf states from the James to the Mississippi rivers. These humid, sleepy rural communities with their mix of African- Americans and whites exist in a timeless agrarian rhythm. Poor (35) Age Groups: 55+ Predominantly Black 62 Hard Scrabble Older Families in Poor Isolated Areas Scratching a living from hard soil describes those who live in our poorest rural areas. Reaching from Appalachia to the Colorado Rockies and from the Texas border to the Dakota badlands, life is hard for Cluster 62 folks. Mining occupations and chewing tobacco show the highest indices in Hard Scrabble. Poor (58) Age Groups: 6-17, 65 Predominantly White, High Native American PRIZM Cluster Narratives 17

142 Houston Onlist Jewish Community New Sources The Woodlands Conroe I45 Spring Humble Atascocita Aldine I10 Katy Cloverleaf Channelview I I Cinco Ranch Jacinto City Mission BendBellaire Deer Park West University Place Baytown La Porte Pecan Grove Stafford South Houston Pasadena I45 RichmondSugar Land Missouri City Rosenberg Friendswood New Sources Legend Onlist Jewish Community Base Map) Federation & JCC Buildings Census Places 10K-<50K Census Places 50K-<500K Census Places 500K+ U.S. Interstates ZIP areas (Onlist Jewish Households By ZIP) Landmass Water Rural Urban Place The ideas, concepts and information contained on this map, and the manner in which they are presented, are protected by the Intellectual Property laws of the United States and may not be used, distributed or duplicated without permission of New Sources Scale: 1" = 16.7 miles 04/10/02 Map produced with Scan/US

143 PREPARING FOR OUR FUTURE THE 2001 STUDY OF THE HOUSTON LISTED JEWISH COMMUNITY