| Jewish Community News
News: March 2007
Study finds 1 million more U.S. Jews
New study finds more U.S. Jews; the challenge is how
to engage them
By Jacob Berkman (JTA)
A new study gives fairly concrete evidence that the American
Jewish population could be more than 1 million people larger than believed
– but if so, it means efforts to engage them may have been less
successful than the community realized.
The United Jewish Communities’ National Jewish Population Survey
2000-01 was widely viewed as flawed. Still, the Jewish community held
to the survey's estimate that there were 5.2 million American Jews.
But even using the same criteria as UJC did to define who is Jewish, it’s
more likely that there are 6 million to 6.4 million American Jews, according
to a report released in February by a team of sociologists at the Steinhardt
Social Research Institute at Brandeis University.
If a broader definition of Jewishness is used, the number could be as
high as 7.4 million, according to Len Saxe, a Brandeis professor and head
of the Steinhardt research center, who led the report.
Saxe’s study suggests a larger, more diverse and less affiliated
community than did the NJPS. The two surveys present very different narratives,
Saxe said.
The difference, he says, can be seen in the opening chapters of Scott
Shay’s new book, “Getting our Groove Back: How to Energize
American Jewry.” Drawing on the NJPS results, the opening chapters
paint American Jewry as a melting ice cube. But the U.S. Jewish population
is actually growing, Saxe says.
That implies two very different motives for communal programming. One
is alarmist: If the Jewish community is rapidly shrinking, then it must
be saved. The other is optimistic: More potential Jews means more people
to bring back to the core.
But the numbers suggest that the community, even if it is growing, has
not been effective in certain areas –penetrating a much smaller
portion of the Jewish population than previously thought – and it
will take more programming to reach the under affiliated. That also means
significantly more philanthropic funding will be needed, Saxe said.
Philanthropists such as Michael Steinhardt, who funds Saxe’s institute,
are looking at the new numbers as a rallying call.
“What is of great concern is the fact that the institutional Jewish
world is serving fewer people, less meaning-fully than we thought before,”
Steinhardt told JTA before the report came out.
Another recent survey conducted by sociologist Ira Sheskin comes to a
similar conclusion, but Saxe’s study involved a “meta-analysis”
of some three dozen government and private foundation surveys that query
religion.
A painstaking process that involves not only analyzing the data but calibrating
each survey to make sure they all use the same statistical language, the
meta-analysis provides a more accurate portrait than the NJPS, Saxe said.
The surveys Saxe used generally are more extensive and thorough than the
NJPS and, he said, are better at finding Jews by birth and self-identity.
The NJPS also missed Jews on college campuses.
But the biggest discrepancy is that most of the calls for the NJPS surveys
were made during early evening hours, when many Jews in their 20s and
early 30s are not home because of work or social engagements, Saxe said.
When the survey did find Jews at home, there was a greater-than-average
chance that they were Orthodox, who tend not to eat out and have familial
obligations at a younger age, he said.
Especially in today’s cell phone age, some young Jews may not even
have land lines, giving surveyors virtually no chance of reaching them.
In all, the NJPS underestimated the total number of children by up to
30,000 per age cohort, according to the new study.
The NJPS estimates that 29 percent of Jewish children attend
day school. But if there are a few hundred thousand more children than
believed, the percentage attending day schools is correspondingly lower,
Saxe said in his study.
The new report also represents a challenge to the federation system, which
already knew it was collecting fewer dollars from fewer donors, but now
must consider that it is actually receiving money from an even smaller
percentage of its donor base.
If Saxe is correct, the undercounting of Jews in their 20s means that
even successful programs, such as Birthright Israel, will have to redouble
their efforts.
Steinhardt made his statement several days before Feb. 6, when the Adelson
Family Charitable Foundation pledged $25 million a year to Birthright
for the next several years.
The growing wait list for Birthright Israel trips could provide anecdotal
backing for Saxe’s findings, according to Jeffrey Solomon, president
of the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies. In North America, there
were more Birthright applicants last year than young Jews having bar and
bat mitzvahs.
For the organized Jewish world, the challenge is to reach the demographic
of Jews between college entry and marriage, about an 11-year period.
“Those years are especially important to identity forming, but at
the same time there is very little in Jewish life that targets that age
group,” Solomon said. “It is time for us to play a little
catch-up and see this as an enormous opportunity.”
But it’s not time to panic, according to Sanford Cardin, executive
director of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, a major
funder of programs that target young Jews.
The challenge is the same whether there are 5.4 million American Jews
or more than 6 million, Cardin said. While more philanthropic dollars
are needed, it’s up to the organized Jewish world to create excitement
about Judaism that will inspire people to return to the fold, and that's
not a function only of the amount of programming.
“Jewish life is not about providing services and programs,”
Cardin said. “It is about attracting, engaging and infusing people
with a way of living that they can choose to live.
“Ultimately this isn't about creating a pot of money. This is about
sparking renewed interest and understanding of Jewish life by a large
number of Jewish people,” he said. “It's about reaching the
individual. And the way that is going to work is more viral and through
a network.”
|