Demo mograp graphic hic & Op Oppor portunity tunity Stu - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

April 2011

Demo mograp graphic hic & Op Oppor portunity tunity Stu tudy dy

Obj bject ectives es Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

• To prepare for future opportunities and challenges of the

local Jewish community, the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland conducted research designed to:

– Estimate the current size of Portland’s Jewish community. – Identify areas of unmet needs (services, programming, etc.). – Explore current perceptions of local Jewish organizations. – Determine best ways to reach unengaged population.

2

• A two phase process for sizing was conducted by

Yacoubian Research in Fall 2008:

– Phase I: 1,800 screening interviews to identify Jewish households completed through random digit dial (RDD)*. – Phase II: 2,513 screening interviews using stratified RDD (RDD calls within census tracts and zip codes where at least one known Jewish household was located).

• The 4,313 screening interviews identified 46 Jewish
• households. This process determined the number of

Jewish households and population in the region. Det Determin ermining ing the size ze of the community mmunity Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

*Randomly generated phone numbers for census tracts and zip codes in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties in Oregon and Clark County in Washington included cell phone numbers. 3

• Jewish Persons

– Jewish people who self-identify as Jewish (religiously, ethnically, or culturally)

• Jewish Households

– Households that include at least one Jewish person

• Persons in Jewish Households

– Children and adults in above categories, plus non-Jews living in Jewish households (where one adult is Jewish)

Det Determin ermining ing the size ze of the community mmunity—Who Who was coun unted? ed? Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

4

• Jewish Persons:

47,500

• Jewish Households:

27,700

• Persons in Jewish Households:

60,000 Jewish ish Population ulation Estimat timates es Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

5

• In Spring 2009, Yacoubian Research conducted a total of

904 interviews with Jewish households.

• The 200+ question survey was structured to allow all

questions to be voluntary.

• 100 interviews are excluded from this presentation

because one or more questions used to segment* the sample were not answered.

• Sample source for the 804 surveys in this analysis:

– 31 (4%) from Phase 1 And Phase 2 random digit dialing (RDD). – 773 (96%) from Phase 3 dialing from community mailing lists.**

Identif ntifying ying oppor

• rtun

tunitie ities s to inc ncre rease ase involv

• lvemen

ement Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

* See slide 10 for description of segments. **11,000 unique households compiled from 16 Portland area Jewish agencies, organizations and congregations lists. 6

• All population studies require some weighting to reflect a more

accurate measure of the population.

• Since community mailing lists reflect, in large part, those with some

involvement in the community, the raw results of the survey over- represent involved audiences.

• However, given the small size of the RDD sample, it was impossible

to effectively replicate the known data.

– Multiple weighting schemes were applied to the data by county, synagogue membership, survey mode, level of involvement and a combination of the above. – None of the weighting schemes were able to accurately approximate known ―hard‖ data statistics (synagogue membership, MJCC membership, number of Jewish day school students, etc.).

Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

7

Identif ntifying ying oppor

• rtun

tunitie ities s to inc ncre rease ase involv

• lvemen

ement

• While this dataset cannot be used to report findings as a representation of

the entire community, measures were taken to segment the dataset and identify possible issues of interest and importance among key segments.

• Given there were only 11,000 Jewish households identified on community

lists compared to the 27,700 estimated, there is a clear need to better understand those with no communal involvement.

• To that end, four questions were used to create an involvement index:

– How involved are you in Jewish social, cultural, religious, athletic or artistic

• rganizations or activities in the Greater Portland Area?

– Are you, or anyone in your household, now a member of the Mittleman Jewish Community Center? – Are you, or is anyone in your household, now a member of a congregation? – Do you plan to participate in the Federation’s next annual campaign?

Identif ntifying ying differe erences nces by level l of involv lvemen ement Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

8

Segmen gment t De Definit nitions ions

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low level of Involvement* Very/somewhat involved in Jewish

• rganizations and activities

292 Answered positively to 3 or more 379 Answered positively to 1

• r 2

134 No positive answer to any Member of a congregation MJCC member Definitely/probably will participate in Federation’s next campaign

Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

*Respondents in this segment are classified as having “low levels of involvement” and not as “uninvolved” because the segment includes people who indicate involvement in the Jewish community is “not too important” as well as “unimportant” and people who “probably won’t” or “definitely won’t” participate in Federation’s next campaign. Members of this segment may have other communal involvements. 9

Segmen gment t De Definit nitions ions

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Level of Involvement Very/somewhat involved in Jewish

• rganizations and activities

99% 59% Member of a congregation 96% 66% MJCC member 34% 7% Definitely/probably will participate in Federation’s next campaign 92% 29%

Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

10

• The questions in this survey were voluntary, so there are

instances where respondents skipped specific questions leading to ―missing data‖.

• The tables and graphs in this presentation are based on those

responding and bases may fluctuate from question to question.

• In many instances, mean ratings are reported (instead of top box

percentage ratings) due to the high number of ―Don’t Know‖

• responses. Mean computations exclude ―Don’t Know‖ responses

and thus are based only on those who provided a valid rating.

Caveats ats Demograph

• graphic

ic and Oppor

• rtunit

nity Study udy

Methodology

11

Demographic and Opportunity Study

Demography

Jewish Identity and Engagement Jewish Education Community Perceptions Social Services Volunteerism and Philanthropy

12

Househ usehold

• ld size

e for highl hly y and d mode dera rate tely y involved

• lved Jews

ws is in line e with h the e state te avera rage ge of 2.49*, 9*, while le house useho holds ds with h low w levels vels of invol volve veme ment nt are si significantl ificantly y sm smalle ler r in si size e and Je Jewis ish h repres resenta entati tion.

• n.

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low level of Involvement People per household 2.5 2.5 2.0 Jewish people per household 2.4 2.1 1.5 Percent of household who are Jewish 96% 84% 75%

Demograph

• graphy

Household Size

*Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey

When a result for one segment is significantly higher than another segment, that result is italicized, when significantly higher than both other segments, appear in bold and italics.

13

• People who report themselves as non-practicing Jews (born

and/or raised Jewish) represent:

– 9% of the low involvement segment – 3% of the moderate involvement segment – 1% of the high involvement segment

• 15% of Jews with low levels of involvement have at least one

member of their household who was born Jewish, but no longer consider themselves Jewish (significantly more than those with moderate involvement at 9% and high involvement at 3%).

• Current religious practices for non-practicing Jews range from

Christianity to Buddhism to no religion. Non

• n-pra

racti ticing cing Je Jews repres resent nt a sm small ll percen centage tage of su survey y respon spondents ents.

Demograph

• graphy

Non-Jewish Members of Household

14

Househ useholds

• lds with

th low levels els of involvem

• lvemen

ent t are signi nific ficantl antly y less s likel kely y to include de childre dren n age 18 or un under.

• er. Low
• w involvem
• lvement

nt househ seholds lds with th childre dren n are also so less ss likel ely y to be raisin sing thei eir r child ldren ren Je Jewi wish. h.

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement None 66% 70% 85% 85% One to Two 30% 26% 13% Three or more 3% 4% 2% Average # of children (All households) .6 .6 .3 Average # of children (Households with children) 1.7 1.9 1.9 Percent raising children Jewish (Households with children) 100% 88% 70%

Demograph

• graphy

Children in Household

15

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Length of residence: Less than 5 years 11% 14% 23 23% Median years* 24.8 18.8 17.5 Median age 58.4 55.1 57.2 College graduate + 91 91% 80% 79% Employed/Retired 55 55% / 34 34% 55% / 26% 52% / 26% Married 76 76% 61% 49% Median income $111.0 .0 k $75.8 k $71.1 k Own home 89 89% 82% 72%

Demograph

• graphy

General Demographic Differences by Segment

Jews s with h low w level els s of invol

• lvem

emen ent t have e lived ed in the e Portland tland metr etropol

• polit

itan an area for a shor

• rter

er period iod of time, e, are signi nific icantl antly y less s likely ely to be married, ried, and are less ss likely ely to own wn thei eir r home me.

*Median is based on those who gave a numeric response, vendor included an option of “all my life” which was selected by a small portion of respondents. 16

Demograph

• graphy

Age Breakouts by Segment

Ap Approximat ximately ely a third d of all resp spon

• nde

dents nts in this sur urvey y are age 65 or older der. . Latest census estimates that 13.3% of Oregon’s population is age 65 or

• lder

der.

*

* Less than 0

17

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Multnomah 57% 51% 54% Washington 29 25 20 Clackamas 7 10 13 Clark 4 12 12 4 Unknown/Other 3 3 8

Demograph

• graphy

County of Residence

Across

• ss segme

gments, nts, over er half live in Mul ultno nomah ah County nty. . Three ree times es as many y moderat

• derately

y involv

• lved

ed Je Jews ws live in Clark rk County nty than n ot

• the

her se segme ments nts.

18

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

SW Portland 50% 30% 20% NW Portland 10% 10% 3% Tigard/Tualatin area 9% 6% 8% Beaverton 7% 7% 11% SE Portland 7% 15% 23% Lake Oswego/West Linn 6% 7% 9% N/NE Portland 6% 9% 14% SW Washington 4% 11% 4% Forest Grove/Hillsboro 0% 2% 2% Milwaukie/Oregon City 0% 1% 4% East Multnomah and Clackamas County 0% 2% 2%

Demograph

• graphy

Areas/Cities

Majori rity ty of highly hly involv

• lved

ed Jews ws live in close se proximi ximity ty to Jewis ish h communi mmunity ty

• rganiza

anizati tion

• ns,

s, while le this is not t the e case e for those

• se with

h low w levels els of involv

• lvem

ement. ent.

*Excludes 5 respondents who live outside of survey area and 28 respondents who did not supply zip codes.

Demographic and Opportunity Study Demography

Jewish Identity and Engagement

Jewish Education Community Perceptions Social Services Volunteerism and Philanthropy

20

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of highly involved Jews indicate it’s very ry importa

• rtant

nt to be involved

• lved in the

e Jewis ish h comm mmuni nity ty, while le more re than n four ur in ten n of those

• se with

h low levels vels of invol

• lve

vement ent state te that t it is not t impor

• rta

tant. nt.

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Importance of Being Involved

(Mean* = 3.8) (Mean = 3.4) (Mean = 2.5)

21

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Reasons for Not Being More Involved

• Among Jews with both moderate and low levels of involvement,

the primary reasons given for not being more involved in the community include:

• Lack of interest (primary reason among those with low levels
• f involvement).
• Too busy (primary reason among those with moderate levels
• f involvement).
• Concerns regarding costs.

22

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Friendships

In striking iking cont ntras rast t to highl hly y and d mode dera rately y invol

• lved

d Jews, ws, two

• thirds

ds of Jews s with h low w level els s of invol

• lvem

ement nt repor port t that t most st of their eir friend ends are non-Jews. s.

23

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Self-identification

Un Unlike highl hly y and d mode dera rately y invol

• lved

d Jews, ws, most st Jews s with th low w levels els of involv

• lvem

ement ent define ine their eir Jewis ish h identit ntity y as cul ultura ural l (non

• n-rel

religious). gious).

24

Majori rity ty acros

• ss

s all segme gments nts identi entify fy as Reform form or Conse nservat vative ve Jews, ws, with th highl hly y involved

• lved Jews

ws more re likely ely to be Conse nservat vative ve and Jews s with h moderat

• derate

e and low levels els of invol

• lve

vement ent more re likel ely y to identify ntify them emsel selves ves as Reform form.

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Denomination

25

In marked rked contr ntras ast t to highl hly y and mode

• derat

ately ely invol volve ved d Jews, ws, almost

• st three

ree- qu quarters ters of Jews ws with th low w levels vels of involvem

• lvement

nt rarely ely, , if ever, er, attend end religious gious servi vice ces. s.

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Religious Services Attendance

(Mean = 3.2) (Mean = 2.8) (Mean = 2.1)

26

58% of Jews s with th low w levels vels of invol volve veme ment nt have ve not t atten ende ded d any lectures tures

• r Jewis

ish h educa cati tion

• n programs

rams in the e past year.

• r. In contr

trast, ast, nearl rly y two-th thirds irds

• f highl

hly y involved

• lved Jews

ws have e attende ended d at least st occas asional ionally ly. .

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Attendance to Lectures or Jewish Education Programs

(Mean = 2.7) (Mean = 2.2) (Mean = 1.6)

27

*Question-wording does not allow for rate of intermarriage to be calculated, as survey asked for all intermarriages within immediate family (including parents and siblings living in separate households).

Jews ws with h low levels els of invol

• lve

vemen ent are signific ificantl antly y less s likely ely to report

• rt that

the e non

• n-Jew

Jewish sh spouse use (in any inter ter-marria marriage ges amon

• ng thei

eir r immed mediat ate e family ly membe embers) s) converted nverted to Jud udaism sm. .

66% 68% 74%

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Intermarriage

Non-Jewish family member did convert to Judaism Non-Jewish family member did not convert to Judaism

28

Has immediate family member(s) now married to a person who was not born Jewish

Majori rity ty of all Jews ws atten end d a Passove

• ver

r Sede der and light t Chanukah nukah candles dles, while le lighti ting ng of Shabb bbat at candles dles is more re comm mmon

• n amon
• ng

g Jews ws with h high h and mode derat ate e levels els of involvem

• lvemen

ent. t.

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Ritual Observance

29

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Anti-Semitism

Opinion ion is split t across

• ss Jews

s of all levels els of involv

• lveme

ement nt with h regar ard d to wheth ther er anti-Se Semit mitism is s a problem blem in Portl tland nd.

• About two-thirds of all three segments say they have never

experienced anti-Semitism in Portland.

• Those who have experienced anti-Semitism in Portland are more

likely to have experienced it over two years ago (rather than recently).

30

65% 50%

Je Jews ws with h low level els s of invol

• lve

vemen ent are si significantl ificantly y less ss likel ely y to feel el any strong

• ng conn

nnecti ection

• n to Israel

ael. . They ey are also

• muc

uch h less likely ely to report

• rt that

t they ey

• r any

nyone e in th n their eir household usehold have e travel veled ed to Israel ael or have ve any plans s to travel vel to Israel ael.

Jewish ish Identity ntity and nd Enga ngage gemen ent

Connection to Israel

(Mean* = 4.0) (Mean = 3.4) (Mean = 2.9)

Have Traveled to Israel 83 83% 16% 14% Plan to Travel to Israel 28 28% Strongly Connected to Israel

* Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=“Not connected” and 5=“Very strongly connected”. 31

Demographic and Opportunity Study Demography Jewish Identity and Engagement

Jewish Education

Community Perceptions Social Services Volunteerism and Philanthropy

32

The e majori

• rity

ty of respond ponden ents ts in this s sample le do no not have ve childr ldren en living g in thei eir r househ usehold.

• ld. Jews

s with h low w levels vels of invol volve veme ment nt are even en less likely ely to live in house useho holds lds that t include de childre dren. n.

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Children in Household

Percen enta tage ge of Househ ehol

• lds

ds with h Childr dren en < 18 18

33

Am Amon

• ng

g those

• se househ

useholds

• lds with

h childr ldren en, , cur urrent rent educa cati tion

• n levels

els of childre dren n in the e househ sehold

• ld do not

t differ fer signi nifican ficantl tly y by segme gment. nt.

Preschoo chool Grade e Schoo

• ol

Middle e School

• ol

High School

• l

H: 71% M: M: 68% L: 13 of 20* H: 79% M: M: 77% L: 13 of 20 H: 74% M: M: 70% L: 13 of 20 H: 37% M: M: 32% L: 7 of 20

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Children’s Education Level Base: Households with children under 18

Of those se with h children en < 18 18:

34 * There are too few low involvement households with children to report percentages.

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Children in Preschool and K-12

• A number of questions asked for the specific schools that children

in K-12 attend with the intention of understanding attendance and enrollment interest in Jewish preschools, day schools and a possible Jewish high school.

• Due to inconsistencies in the dataset that could not be corrected,

there is uncertainty with the data related to enrollment in Jewish preschools and day schools.

• The next three slides depict the variation in participation rates for

Jewish children’s programming across segments.

35

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Children in Preschool and K-12

Li Likely y to have e childr dren en who need d pre-sc school

• oling

ng in the next t 5 years* s* H: 10% M: M: 12% L: L: 9%

* Includes respondents who currently have children attending preschool. ** There are too few low involvement households with children to report percentages.

Have e children en atten endi ding ng religiou ious s school

• ols

H: 57% M: M: 54% L: 5 of 20** Of all household eholds: s: Of those se with h children en < 18 18:

36

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Children in Preschool and K-12

* Only asked of respondents who currently have children age 18 or under. ** Only asked of people who have high school students.

Express ess interest est in sendin ding g childr dren en to a Jewish sh high h school

• ol**

H: 14% M: M: 11% L: L: 0 of 20 Have e children en who became ame a bar/b /bat at mitzvah* h* H: H: 47 47% M: M: 26% L: 0 of 20 Of those se with h high school

• ol studen

dents: ts: Of those se with h children en < 18 18:

37

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Extracurricular Opportunities

Have e children en who regularly ularly participat icipate e in youth h groups ps H: 37% M: M: 25% L: 0 of 20 Have e children en who atten ended ded a day camp p last t year H: 74% M: M: 66% L: 13 of 20 H: 39% M: M: 45% L: 4 of 20 Jewish sh Secular Of those se with h children en < 18 18: Of those se with h children en < 18 18:

38

H: H: 15% M: M: 16% L: 9%

Jewish ish Educ ucation ation

Children Attending College

Atten end college ege H: 47% M: M: 26% L: L: Base size is too small to report Ac Acti tive e in Jewish sh campus us organiz izat ation

• n

Of those se with h children en who attend nd college: ege: Of all househol eholds ds:

39

Demographic and Opportunity Study Demography Jewish Identity and Engagement Jewish Education

Community Perceptions

Social Services Volunteerism and Philanthropy

40

Commun mmunity ity Perceptions eptions

Highest Priority Public Affairs Issue

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Israel 18% 11% 11% Promotion of civil rights and tolerance 14% 16% 21% Fighting anti-Semitism 8% 11% 12% Economic justice (fighting poverty) 5% 10% 8% Protection of the environment 2% 2% 5% Church and state (1st amendment) issues 2% 3% 2% All of them 45% 39% 33%

Acros

• ss se

segme gments nts, , there ere is s no consen nsensus us on the e highes hest t prior

• rit

ity y pub ublic ic affai fairs issue.

• ue. However

er, , Israel ael stands nds out ut amon

• ng highly

hly involv

• lved

ed Jews ws as the e top priori rity ty for this segme ment.

• nt. While

le promo moti tion

• n of civil

l rights ts stand nds s out ut as the e top priori rity ty amon

• ng

g those

• se with

h low w level els s of invol

• lvem

emen ent. t.

41

Je Jews ws with h low level els s of invol

• lve

vemen ent are si significantl ificantly y less ss likel ely y than an modera

• derate

tely ly or highly hly invol

• lve

ved d Jews s to be familiar liar with h the e work rk that local l Jewi wish sh organi anizati zation

• ns

s and d cong ngre regat ations ions do to serve ve the e Portla land nd Jewis ish h comm mmun unit ity. y.

Commun mmunity ity Perceptions eptions

Familiarity with Local Jewish Organizations (Mean = 3.4) (Mean = 2.9) (Mean = 2.5)

42

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Families with children 3.4* (11% DK)** 3.4 (21% DK) 3.2 (44% DK) Children < 18 3.3 (16% DK) 3.2 (28% DK) 3.0 (53% DK) Elderly or retired 3.0 (19% DK) 2.9 (30% DK) 3.0 (48% DK) Empty nesters 2.7 (33% DK) 2.6 (38% DK) 2.1 (60% DK) College age children 2.5 (32% DK) 2.5 (39% DK) 2.4 (59% DK) Young adults 2.5 (30% DK)

2.6 (36% DK)

2.3 (50% DK) GLBT 2.4 (47% DK) 2.5 (51% DK) 2.6 (67% DK) Single adults 2.4 (40% DK) 2.3 (43% DK) 2.1 (54% DK)

Community mmunity Percepti eptions

• ns

How Well Audiences’ Needs are Being Met (Mean Ratings)

Top three ee aud udiences iences are consi sist stently ently rated ed across ss each h segme gment nt as those

• se

best st served ed. . Whil ile e single le adul ults s are viewed d as not t being ing as wel ell l served.

• ed. A

A large e percenta centage ge were ere un unable ble to ass ssess ess how w well ll thes ese aud udien ences ces are being ing served. ed.

* Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 4 where 1=“Not well at all” and 4=“Very Well”. ** Don’t know 43

Aw Awarene reness ss of the e Jewi wish sh Fede dera rati tion

• n is marke

rkedly dly lower wer amon

• ng

g Jews ws with th low levels vels of invol volvem vement nt than n amon

• ng mode

dera rate tely y or highl hly y invol volve ved d Jews. s.

Commun mmunity ity Perceptions eptions

Familiarity with the Jewish Federation (Mean = 3.4) (Mean = 2.9) (Mean = 2.5)

44

Am Amon

• ng

g those

• se familiar

liar with h the e Fede dera rati tion

• n, the

e highe her r the e level vel of involvem

• lvement

nt the e more

• re likely

ely they ey are to have e a p posit itive ve impres ressi sion

• n of the

e

• rganiza

anizati tion

• n. Those
• se with

th lower wer levels vels of invol

• lve

vement ent are more re likel ely y to have e a neutra utral l view. ew.

(Mean = 4.1)

Commun mmunity ity Perceptions eptions

Impressions of Jewish Federation

(Mean = 3.5) (Mean = 3.5)

45

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Raising funds for local and overseas needs 3.3*

(10%DK)**

3.2

(35% DK)

3.2

(51% DK)

Disbursing/distributing funds for local and

• verseas needs

3.2

(17% DK)

3.0

(46% DK)

2.8

(64% DK)

Improving social services for the community 3.1

(13% DK) 2.9 (37% DK) 2.9 (46% DK)

Developing future leaders for the Jewish community 2.9

(26% DK)

2.8

(47%DK)

2.7

(59% DK)

Community mmunity Percepti eptions

• ns

How well do you think the Jewish Federation does in…? (Mean Ratings)

* Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 4 where 1=“Not well at all” and 4=“Very Well”. ** Don’t know

Those

• se fa

familiar liar with h the e Federat ederation ion percei ceive it as doing ing wel ell in all areas.

• s. Not

t su surp rpris isingly ngly, , the higher her the e level el of invol

• lvem

ement, nt, the st stronge

• nger the

e rating. ng. Those

• se with

h low w invol

• lvem

emen ent t levels els are more re apt to be un unsure. ure.

46

Community mmunity Percepti eptions

• ns

Jewish Review Readership

The e majori

• rity

ty of all three ree segment gments s read d the e Jewis ish h Revi view print t editi tion

• n but

ut

• nly

ly a sm small l percentage centage read d the Je Jewis ish h Revi view w onli line, ne, and the e majori

• rity

ty of these ese reader ders s still read d the e print t versi sion

• n as wel

ell. l. Across segments, the News articles and Calendar are most frequently read sections.

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Read Print Edition

• n

89% 89% 69% 55% Read Online ne Edition ion

• -

3% 1% 6% 4% 1% Read Bot

• th

h Print and Online ne Editi tion

• n

47

Community mmunity Percepti eptions

• ns

Jewish Review Readership

Satisfact action ion with th the e paper r is s high, h, esp special ecially ly among

• ng highl

hly y invol

• lved

ed Je Jews ws.

3.5* 3.2 3.3 Satisfi sfied ed with the Jewish sh Revie iew

* Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 4 where 1=“Very dissatisfied” and 4=“Very satisfied”. 48

Demographic and Opportunity Study Demography Jewish Identity and Engagement Jewish Education Community Perceptions

Social Services

Volunteerism and Philanthropy

49

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Service Quality (mean rating) 4.0* 4.0 3.7 Percent not sure 42% 58% 71 71% Would recommend (% yes) 77 77% 64% 52% Percent not sure 20% 31% 42 42%

Social ial Servic vices es

Jewish Family and Child Services

A large percentage of Jews don’t know enough about JFCS to rate them. Am Amon

• ng

g those

• se who
• do,

, ratings ngs are consi nsist stently ntly positi tive e across

• ss all three

ee segment gments.

• s. In addi

diti tion

• n, the

e majorit

• rity

y of all three ee segme gments nts would ld recomm commen end d thei eir r services ices.

* Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=“Poor” and 5=“Excellent”. 50

.

JFCS’s location is not a major impediment, as less than a quarter of each segment indicat cate that t JFCS CS is inconven enien entl tly located. ed.

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Quality of care at Cedar Sinai Park (mean rating*) 4.5 4.5 4.2 Percent not sure 30% 57% 59% Importance of receiving care from a Jewish provider/facility (mean rating**) 2.8 2.5 2.1

Social ial Servic vices es

Cedar Sinai Park

Majori rity ty of thos

• se

e who ho have e a modera

• derate

e or low w level el of involv

• lveme

ement nt are not

• t

familiar enough to rate Cedar Sinai’s quality of care. Those who are familiar give very y high h ratings.

• ngs. The higher

her the e level el of invol

• lvem

ement, nt, the more re imp mpor

• rta

tant nt it is to receiv eive e care e from

• m a Jewi

wish sh provide ider.

* Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=“Poor” and 5=“Excellent” ** Mean ratings computed using a scale of 1 to 4 where 1=“Not important at all” and 5=“Very important”. 51

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Familiarit arity y with th services ces Very familiar 57% 34% 22% Somewhat familiar 37 48 50 Conveni nience nce of locati tion Very convenient 49% 49% 27% 18% Somewhat convenient 23 21 25 Likeli elihoo hood d to join n in the next t three ee years Very/somewhat likely 11% 8% 10%

Social ial Servic vices es

Mittleman Jewish Community Center

The e highe her the e level el of involv

• lveme

ement, nt, the e more re likel ely y Jews s are to be fa fami milia liar r with h the e MJCC.

• C. Interes

eresti tingly ngly, , Jews ws with h mode dera rate e or low w level els s of invol

• lvem

emen ent t are less s likely ely to find nd the e locat ation ion of the e MJCC C very y conven enient. ient.

52

Demographic and Opportunity Study Demography Jewish Identity and Engagement Jewish Education Community Perceptions Social Services

Volunteerism and Philanthropy

53

Volun untee eeris rism m and nd Philanth ilanthrop

• py

Volunteering to Jewish Causes

Al Almost

• st two-th

thir irds ds of highl hly y invol

• lved

ed Jews ws are cur urren ently tly volunt ntee eeri ring ng their eir time me for Jewish sh caus uses es—th this is is twice ce as many y as those

• se who
• are mode

dera rately ely involv

• lved.
• ed. Over

r half of all Jews ws who ho have e low w levels els of involv

• lveme

ement nt have never er volunt ntee eered red for a J Jewi wish sh caus use. e.

54

Not t sur urpri risi singl ngly, y, the e highe her r the e level vel of invol volve veme ment, nt, the e more re likely ely Jews ws are to make ke chari rita table ble contr tribu ibuti tions

• ns to Jewis

ish h caus uses es and the larger er the e average rage gift si size. e.

Volun untee eeris rism m and nd Philanth ilanthrop

• py

Charitable Giving High Invol

• lvemen

ement Modera erate e Involveme ement nt Low Invol

• lvemen

ement 99% 99% make charitable contributions

Median gift last year to local Jewish causes of $1925

91% make charitable contributions

Median gift last year to local Jewish causes of $339

82% 82% make charitable contributions

Median gift last year to local Jewish causes of $71

64.2%

Jewish Causes

35.8%

Non-Jewish Causes

45.1%

Jewish Causes

54.2%

Non-Jewish Causes

26.8%

Jewish Causes

72.4%

Non-Jewish Causes

55

Volun untee eeris rism m and nd Philanth ilanthrop

• py

Local Jewish Charitable Giving (among those who contribute to Jewish causes) High Invol

• lvemen

ement Modera erate e Involveme ement nt Low Invol

• lvemen

ement

Congregations

40.6%

Congregations

39.0%

Congregations

28.0%

Highly ly invol

• lved

ed Jews s give a highe her percen entage tage of thei eir r gifts ts throu

• ugh

gh Federat ederation ion than an ot

• the

her segmen gments

• ts. Jews

s with h a low w level el of invol

• lvem

emen ent t donat nate e the e majorit

• rity

y of thei eir r gifts ts directl ectly y to ot

• ther

her Jewish sh caus uses. es.

56

Other Jewish causes Other Jewish causes

Volun untee eeris rism m and nd Philanth ilanthrop

• py

Top Reasons to Give Through Federation

For r those

• se who

ho give through

• ugh Fede

ederat ation, ion, top reasons sons for giving ng throu

• ugh

gh Feder ederat ation ion are consis nsistent ent across se segme gments nts.

• Top reason given for why people donate through Federation is

trust that the money will be distributed where it is most needed.

• Other main reasons to give through Federation include a belief in

the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federation and a belief in the Federation's mission.

• Among those highly and moderately involved Jews who plan to

participate in the Federation’s next campaign, the majority plan to give the same amount as in the past.

57

Volun untee eeris rism m and nd Philanth ilanthrop

• py

Top Federation Funding Categories

While le top four ur areas as for Fede edera rati tion

• n fun

unding ding are consi nsist sten ent t across

• ss segments,

gments, Jewis ish h educ ucati tion

• n is most

st imp mpor

• rtan

tant t to those

• se who
• are highl

hly y involv

• lved

ed with h the e comm mmun unit ity.

High Involvement Moderate Involvement Low Involvement

Jewish education 27% 17% 12% Social services 25 24 28 Senior programs/services 20 28 30 Israel 12 7 7

58

Demographic and Opportunity Study

Interpretations and Conclusions

59

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

Greater Portland’s Jewish community is a growing, diverse population that include des a large num umber ber of Jews ws who

• are not
• t tradi

diti tionally

• nally involv
• lved

ed with th the e comm mmun unit ity.

• The estimated population of 47,500 is more than twice the size

informally projected 20 years ago and includes a broad range of Jewish practice and beliefs, including interfaith households— living among the 47,500 are an estimated 12,500 non Jews.

• The known community is roughly 11,000 households, while the

projected number of Jewish households is 27,700.

• Even within the known community, there is a sizable proportion of

households that include people whose sense of Jewish identity is not being strengthened through traditional opportunities of involvement (synagogue and JCC memberships).

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

Jews s with h lower r levels els of involv

• lveme

ement nt differ er dramat matica call lly y from

• m those
• se with

h highe her level els s of invol

• lvem

emen ent t demogra emographic phically ally, , attitudinal tudinally ly and beha haviora viorally ly, , which ch demonstra emonstrates es the e need eed for new w approache aches s for reachi ching ng and d engaging gaging this s aud udience ence.

• Jews with lower levels of involvement are more apt to be

unmarried, living in households with non-Jews, are newer to the Portland area and reside in areas not in close proximity to Portland Jewish organizations. They are far less likely to have children than those Jews with higher levels of involvement.

• As a group, they do not place a great deal of importance on being

involved in the Jewish community, most of their friends are not Jewish and they rarely, if ever, attend services or other community events.

• They are far more likely to identify as a cultural Jew or a non-

practicing Jew and more consider themselves reform than other denominations of Judaism.

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

• As the majority of Jews with low levels of involvement have mostly

non-Jewish friends, programming must offer more than just an

• pportunity to socialize with friends.
• Given the fact that this audience is more likely to be living with

non-Jews, consider development of more secular events or programs that are very welcoming and accepting of non-Jews.

• As the majority of Jews with low levels of involvement live outside
• f immediate area where Jewish services are located, develop

more community-based events/programs (especially on the East side). To enga gage ge Jews s with h lower r levels els of involv

• lveme

ement, nt, consi nside der r the e follo lowing ing recomm commen enda dati tions

• ns for attracti

cting ng this aud udien ence. ce.

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

To enga gage ge Jews s with h lower r levels els of involv

• lveme

ement, nt, consi nside der r the e follo lowing ing recomm commen enda dati tions

• ns for attracti

cting ng this aud udien ence. ce.

• Consider adding new programming for singles.
• Even among highly involved Jews, there is evidence to suggest that

Jewish organizations need to do a better job serving single adults, college-age Jews and young adults in general.

• Also, keep in mind that cost is considered a barrier for Jews with

low and moderate levels of involvement, so ensure programming calendar includes no/low cost opportunities.

• Given the large number of recent arrivals, explore ways to

enhance outreach to new residents.

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

Knowing ng why y Jews ws with h low level els s of invol

• lvem

emen ent t chose

• se not
• t to affiliat

ate e does

• es

not

• t tell us

us what t changes anges need eed to be made de to increase rease involv

• lveme

ement. nt.

• Jews with low levels of involvement say they are too busy and/or

are not interested in further involvement with the Jewish community.

• However, this survey did not explore ways in which this

population may be engaging in informal or non-traditional ways

• r potential new ways in which this population might be open to

engaging with the community in the future.

• Further research with Jews with low levels of traditional

involvement is needed to understand how the Jewish community might be able to provide programs/activities that better fit their schedule and provide meaningful value.

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

• Focus on cultural identity (over religious identity).
• Infuse cultural programming with more value—so perceptions
• f not having time to attend switch to ―can’t miss!‖
• Enhance Jewish experience of Hanukkah and Passover since

these are the holidays universally celebrated.

• Since this study did not ask about High Holiday service

attendance, further research should explore the value of potential opportunities to enhance this time of year as well. Soci cial al programs grams shou

• uld

ld do the e follo lowing wing to attract ct the broa

• ade

dest st repres resenta ntati tion

• n of the

e comm mmun unit ity: y:

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

• Even among moderately involved Jews, less than a quarter are

very familiar with the Federation, compared to nearly half of those who are highly involved.

• Impressions of the Federation among those who are aware are

mostly positive or neutral. However, even among those who are highly involved, only about a third have very positive impressions.

• This suggests more work is needed to increase awareness among

the community of the work the Federation does and to explore ways in which it can create stronger positive impressions among even the most involved. Jews s with h low w level els s of invol

• lvem

emen ent t have e a low w level el of awarene reness ss of the e Feder ederat ation ion and d the e work that t it does es.

Int nter erpre pretatio tations ns and nd Conc nclusion lusions

• People who know and use the services of Portland’s communal

agencies are satisfied.

• However, a large proportion, especially those with lower levels of

involvement are unfamiliar with the agencies.

• Given the similar challenges faced by Federation and its

constituent agencies, collaboration opportunities exist to increase

• verall awareness for communal services.

Similarly, there is a low level of awareness of Portland’s communal agencies.