SUPPORT FOR THE STUDY The 2014 St. Louis Jewish Community Study is - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SUPPORT FOR THE STUDY The 2014 St. Louis Jewish Community Study is funded in part by a generous gift from Terry and Harvey Hieken.

Additional support has been provided by

• The Lubin-Green Foundation
• The Morton J. and Morton D. May Fund of the Greater St. Louis

Community Foundation

• Two anonymous donors
• Community Donors

CONTENTS

• Acknowledgments
• About the Study
• Big Stories
• Jewish Population Estimates
• Geography
• Demography
• Vulnerable Populations and Human Services
• Intermarriage and Raising Children as Jews
• Jewish Education of Children
• Being Jewish in St. Louis
• Jewish Giving
• Relationship to Israel
• Major Themes and Implications

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Les Sterman, Chair

• Jeff Glogower
• Harvey Hieken
• Paul Kravitz
• Mark Levin
• Emily Stein MacDonald
• Neil Marglous
• Michael Novack
• Barry Seeskin
• Karen Tabak
• Greg Yawitz

ADVISORY COMMITTEE Committee Members, Ex-Officio

• Patty Croughan, Board Chair
• Gerald Greiman, Vice Chair for

Strategic Planning

• Ruth Raskas, Vice Chair for

Planning & Allocations

Technical Advisors

• Andrew Martin, Ph.D., Dean, College
• f Literature, Science and the Arts,

University of Michigan

• Betsy Sinclair, Ph.D., Associate

Professor of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis

Jewish Federation of St. Louis

Andrew Rehfeld, Ph.D., President & Chief Executive Officer Susan S. Scribner, Manager, St. Louis Jewish Community Study Stephen Cohen, Ph.D., Vice President for Planning & Allocations

JEWISH FEDERATION PROJECT STAFF

THE JPAR RESEARCH TEAM Ukeles Associates, Inc. (UAI)

Jacob B. Ukeles, Ph.D., President, UAI, Co-President, JPAR Ron Miller, Ph.D., Vice President, Research, UAI Steven M. Cohen, Ph.D., Senior Researcher, UAI

Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS)

Melissa Herrmann, President SSRS, Co-President, JPAR David Dutwin, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, SSRS and Chief Methodologist, JPAR Susan Sherr, Ph.D., Senior Research Director, SSRS Bobbie Bregman, Project Director, SSRS Kathy Langdale, Associate Research Director, SSRS

ABOUT THE STUDY

2014 Study Goals

• 1. Provide a database to inform policy and planning decisions in the
• St. Louis Jewish community.
• 2. Estimate the number of Jewish persons and Jewish households in

greater St. Louis.

• 3. Describe the characteristics, attitudes, behaviors and geographic

distribution of the Jewish population.

• 4. Compare the 2014 Jewish population to the previous study results

(1995).

ABOUT THE STUDY

• Interviewing occurred April 1, 2014 - June 23, 2014
• We called 181,762 different randomly generated

telephone numbers.

– 143,418 landline phone numbers – 38,344 cell phone numbers

• 9,493 households answered a 3-5 minute “screener,”

to determine whether an adult in the household self- identified as Jewish. ABOUT THE STUDY

• The “screening” phase identified 1,205 Jewish

households.

• In these households, either the respondent or another

adult identified their religion as Judaism or, if not, they considered themselves to be Jewish or partly Jewish.

• 1,003 Jewish household respondents completed the

entire survey – 83% of all eligible Jewish households.

• In order to maximize participation of intermarried

households in the survey, 105 of these 1,003 interviews were completed with non-Jewish respondents. ABOUT THE STUDY

ABOUT THE STUDY

• Of the 1,003 interviews, 292 were cell phone interviews,

allowing us to reach a significant number of younger Jewish adults.

• The screening response rate was 38.5%.

– The landline response rate was 42.8%. – The cell phone response rate was 25.8%.

• The maximum potential survey sampling error for data

based on all 1,003 survey respondents is +/- 4.5% at the standard 95% confidence level (including design effect).

ABOUT THE STUDY: POST-STRATIFICATION

• In addition to the data from the Jewish household interviews,

randomly-selected non-Jewish households provided demographic data on county of residence, age, race-ethnicity, education level and landline/cell phone use to represent more than 8,000 non-Jewish households that provided Jewish-status screening information.

• These data were used to post-stratify the combined

Jewish/non-Jewish sample to U.S. Census-based parameters.

• Post-stratification is designed to adjust for traditionally higher

response rates among respondents who are older, female, more highly educated, etc.

• The design effect and the final potential sampling error of +/-

4.5% include adjustments for post-stratification.

SEVEN BIG STORIES

• 1. Since 1995, the number of Jewish households has grown.
• 2. The St. Louis Jewish community is stable, with few planning to leave

the area.

• 3. Young adults are a large, diverse and geographically concentrated

segment.

• 4. Large numbers of people in Jewish households self-define as non-

Jewish or partly Jewish.

• 5. Many Jewish households are highly engaged in Jewish life; but a

significant number are not.

• 6. There is a geographic divide between more engaged and less

engaged Jewish households.

• 7. 26% of households are poor or near-poor.

JEWISH POPULATION ESTIMATES

DEFINITIONS: WHO IS COUNTED AS JEWISH IN THIS STUDY? Jewish Persons

• Respondents (age 18+) who view Judaism as their religion or who say

that “aside from religion” they consider themselves to be Jewish or partly Jewish

• Spouses whom respondent define as Jewish or partly Jewish either by

religion or by self-definition

• All other adults in the household whom the respondent views as

Jewish or partly Jewish

• Children being raised as Jewish or as partly Jewish

Non-Jewish Persons

• Respondents, spouses and other adults who are NOT Jewish – either

by religion or by self-definition

• Children NOT being raised Jewishly – they are being raised in another

religion, or without a religion and not Jewish, or the respondent says their status is “undecided”

DEFINITIONS: JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS Jewish Households*

• Households that include at least one Jewish adult

People Living in Jewish Households Include

• Jewish persons, and
• Non-Jewish persons

*“Jewish Household” refers to households with at least one Jewish adult, but the term has no implications for the identity of all household members or the nature of their engagement in Jewish life.

WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE

• ST. LOUIS JEWISH COMMUNITY?

Increases are not highly visible to Jewish leadership

• Newcomers to St. Louis – 11% of all Jewish households have

moved to area in last ten years, and may not join Jewish

• rganizations
• Returnees to St. Louis – moved out, often post-college, but return.
• Intermarried, unmarried and partly Jewish households are typically

disconnected.

Symptoms of decline are highly visible

• Declines in number of donors, congregational members, etc.
• Anecdotal information about children of members leaving
• Friends and organizational members may have moved

WHY THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF JEWS IN 2014 EXCEEDS THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

Due to rounding, numbers in the tables may not add precisely and percentages may not add to 100%.

OF THE 89,000 PEOPLE IN ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS, 11% ARE “PARTLY JEWISH” AND 31% ARE NOT JEWISH

JEWISH STATUS OF ALL PEOPLE IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS,

• ST. LOUIS, 2014

THE NUMBER OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS IS 34% HIGHER THAN IN 1995; THE NUMBER OF NON-JEWS IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS GREW FAR MORE

JEWISH POPULATION STUDY COMPARISONS: 1995-2014

• A. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE STUDIES
• The geographic boundaries of the 1995 and 2014 study areas are similar.

Both studies included St. Louis City, St. Louis County and St. Charles County.

• Both studies sampled and interviewed using state-of-the-art interviewing

procedures, which have become more sophisticated by 2014.

• Both studies interviewed Jewish households via a combination of List and

RDD (random-digit dialing) in order to include Jewish persons and households known to the Jewish community in St. Louis, as well as those not known to local Jewish organizations.

• However, the 2014 Study used a more sophisticated version of the random

sampling method used in 1995, and random cell phone interviews were dialed extensively in 2014 (obviously not necessary in 1995).

• Both studies did not include in the complete survey interview process

“Jewish origin” individuals who no longer identified as Jews if they were not raised as Jews, even if they had a Jewish parent.

JEWISH POPULATION STUDY COMPARISONS: 1995-2014 (CONTINUED)

• B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STUDIES
• In 1995, Jewish survey respondents included those who were both raised

Jewish and had a Jewish parent, but did not currently consider themselves to be Jewish or their religion as Judaism. In 2014, these “Jewish origin” respondents were not included, since they no longer view themselves as Jewish. The published 1995 report does not include an estimate of the number of “Jewish origin” persons counted as Jews – there could have been several thousand, or only a few hundred.

• In 1995, the “Jewish population” estimate of 60,000 included Jewish

persons and non-Jewish persons in the household who were related to the head of household. The 2014 study does not include non-Jews in the “Jewish” count. The 2014 study differentiates among Jewish persons, non-Jewish persons and all people living in 2014 Jewish-defined households.

JEWISH POPULATION STUDY COMPARISONS: 1995-2014 (CONTINUED)

• B. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STUDIES (CONTINUED)
• The 1995 Study may not have included Jewish college students

temporarily living outside of St. Louis in the count of Jewish persons. The 2014 Study counts them as Jews living in St. Louis Jewish households, even if they are temporarily living outside the area (many

• ften return for holidays, etc.).
• It is possible that the 1995 estimate did not include people who are

partly Jewish, or “Jewish and something else.” They are counted as Jewish in 2014. The definition of who counts as a Jew in a community study has changed significantly since 1995, when the impact of intermarriage on American Jewish life was much less pronounced; indeed, the concept of being partly Jewish was not a central thought in Jewish terminology at the time.

BOTH STUDIES

WHO WAS CONSIDERED JEWISH IN THE 1995 AND 2014 STUDIES?

Respondents born or raised Jewish who identify as Jewish either by religion or other Respondents not born or raised Jewish, but who identify as Jewish either by religion or other Respondents born or raised Jewish but not currently Jewish (“Jewish origin”) Non-Jewish relatives in Jewish households (in total pop estimate) College students temporarily living outside of

• St. Louis

(maybe – not sure if excluded in 1995) Explicit reference to being Partly Jewish or Jewish + something else (may not have existed in 1995)

SINCE 1995, THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE LIVING IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE JEWISH DECLINED SUBSTANTIALLY

PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHO IDENTIFY AS JEWISH: 1995-2014

HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDING A JEWISH ADULT ARE 4.7% OF ALL ST. LOUIS AREA HOUSEHOLDS

ESTIMATED PERCENT OF ALL STUDY AREA HOUSEHOLDS WHICH INCLUDE A JEWISH ADULT: ST. LOUIS 1995 AND 2014

GEOGRAPHY

GEOGRAPHIC SUB-AREAS: ST. LOUIS 2014 Based on zip code of residence, we initially organized the data into five major geographic sub-areas (and a few smaller areas).

• St. Louis City: All zip codes in the City
• University City/Clayton: 63105, 63117, 63130, 63143, 63144
• Olivette/Ladue: 63124, 63132
• Creve Coeur Area: 63043, 63141, 63146
• Chesterfield: 63005, 63011, 63017, 63021, 63038, 63040
• Des Peres/Kirkwood/Webster Groves: 63119, 63122, 63131
• St. Charles County: All zips in St. Charles County
• Residual Areas: North [St. Louis] County and South County –

various zip codes

• 1. St. Louis City
• 2. University

City/Clayton

• 3. Olivette/Ladue
• 4. Creve Coeur

Area

• 5. Chesterfield
• 6. Des

Peres/Kirkwood/ Webster Groves

• 7. St. Charles

County

• 8. Residual Areas:

North [St. Louis] County others and South County Areas

GEOGRAPHIC SUB-AREAS: ST. LOUIS 2014

CHESTERFIELD, CREVE COEUR AND UNIVERSITY CITY/ CLAYTON HAVE THE MOST JEWISH PERSONS

JEWISH HOUSEHOLD NUMBERS BY AREA FOLLOW A SIMILAR – BUT NOT IDENTICAL – GEOGRAPHIC PATTERN

THE PROPORTION OF ALL AREA HOUSEHOLDS WHICH ARE JEWISH IS HIGHEST IN OLIVETTE/LADUE & CREVE COEUR, LOWEST IN NORTH & SOUTH COUNTY OTHER

PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS IN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WHICH INCLUDE A JEWISH ADULT: 2014

88% OF PEOPLE IN OLIVETTE/LADUE JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS ARE JEWISH; 49% IN ST. CHARLES COUNTY/DES PERES/SOUTH & NORTH COUNTY OTHER COMBINED

PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE JEWISH, BY SUB-AREA: 2014

OVERALL, 31% OF ALL RESPONDENTS MOVED INTO THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS

Only 16% of Olivette/Ladue respondents report having moved into their current residence in the last five years; Creve Coeur respondents are the most likely to be long-term residents.

DEMOGRAPHY

SINCE 1981, THE ST. LOUIS JEWISH COMMUNITY HAS AGED SOMEWHAT – JEWISH PERSONS ARE OLDER THAN NON-JEWS IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS

INCLUDING NON-JEWISH PERSONS IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS, THE JEWISH COMMUNITY HAS A BALANCED AGE DISTRIBUTION

DECILE ANALYSIS: AGE OF ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN

• ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS

THE JEWISH PERSONS-ONLY AGE STRUCTURE REFLECTS THE SLIGHTLY OLDER STATUS OF JEWS

• VS. NON-JEWS IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS

DECILE ANALYSIS: AGE OF JEWISH PERSONS ONLY LIVING IN ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS

• ST. LOUIS HAS A SIMILAR PERCENTAGE OF SENIORS

AS IN SEVERAL OTHER JEWISH COMMUNITIES

PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLE IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE SENIORS 65 AND OVER

*National Jewish Population Survey

• ST. LOUIS HAS ABOUT THE SAME PERCENTAGE

OF CHILDREN AS IN SEVERAL OTHER JEWISH COMMUNITIES

PERCENT OF ALL PEOPLE IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE CHILDREN UNDER AGE 18

*National Jewish Population Survey

• ST. LOUIS CITY AND UNIVERSITY CITY/CLAYTON:

MOSTLY YOUNGER ADULTS; CREVE COEUR: THE LARGEST NUMBER OF SENIORS

In all tables, percentages may not add to 100% precisely due to rounding.

OF ALL JEWISH RESPONDENTS & SPOUSES UNDER AGE 65, 71% ARE EMPLOYED – 16% SELF-EMPLOYED

70% OF JEWISH RESPONDENTS & SPOUSES HAVE EARNED A COLLEGE DEGREE; 37% HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE

Education levels slightly exceed those found for all Jewish adults in the nation, as reported by Pew in 2013.

55% OF RESPONDENTS WERE BORN IN THE ST. LOUIS

• AREA. 4% WERE BORN IN THE FSU, 1% IN ISRAEL.

RESPONDENTS’ PLACE OF BIRTH

RELATIVELY FEW NEWCOMERS: 11% OF ALL RESPONDENTS MOVED TO ST. LOUIS SINCE 2004

YEARS RESPONDENT HAS LIVED IN THE ST. LOUIS AREA

ONLY 5% OF ALL RESPONDENTS PLAN TO MOVE AWAY FROM ST. LOUIS IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS

SURVEY RESPONDENTS PLANS TO REMAIN IN ST. LOUIS OR MOVE OUT IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS, 2014

EVEN AMONG RESPONDENTS UNDER AGE 35, FEW PLAN TO MOVE OUTSIDE THE ST. LOUIS AREA IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS

RESPONDENT MOVING PLANS, ST. LOUIS 2014

MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS

MARITAL STATUS: SIX OF TEN RESPONDENTS ARE CURRENTLY MARRIED. ONE OF FIVE HAS NEVER MARRIED.

ONLY 25% OF RESPONDENTS 18-34 ARE MARRIED & 70% OF THOSE 35-49 ARE MARRIED

ALMOST 10,000 JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDE A CHILD – 29% OF ALL JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS IN THE

• ST. LOUIS AREA

DOES JEWISH HOUSEHOLD INCLUDE A CHILD AGE 4 OR YOUNGER?

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE, JEWISH ST. LOUIS

*In all communities, except Cleveland, the question asked was whether the respondent or any member of the Jewish household self-identified as “…gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender; in Cleveland, the question was only asked of the respondent.

APPROXIMATELY 4% OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDE SOMEONE WHO IS LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL OR TRANSGENDER

Among respondents under age 30, the LGBT proportion rises to 9%.

LGBT STATUS OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS*

13% OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS ARE MULTI-RACIAL, HISPANIC AND/OR NON-WHITE

PERCENT OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH ARE HISPANIC, BI-RACIAL OR WHERE NOT ALL MEMBERS ARE “WHITE”

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS AND HUMAN SERVICES

ANNUAL INCOME: 9% OF HOUSEHOLDS UNDER $25,000

The percentages in the chart above reflect income patterns excluding 10% of respondents who totally refused to answer and the 2% who said that they did not know the household’s income. The chart includes those who said that their household income was at least $25,000 annually, but would not provide additional details.

ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME: 2014 ST. LOUIS JEWISH COMMUNITY STUDY

FEWER LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN JEWISH

• ST. LOUIS THAN IN SEVERAL OTHER JEWISH

COMMUNITIES

NJPS, 2001: National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01

PERCENT OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME UNDER $25,000

In general, respondents are more likely to answer the subjective financial status question than questions on income; only 5% of the 1,003 survey respondents refused to answer the financial status question while about 12% did not provide any income information. Missing responses are excluded in this chart.

24% OF HOUSEHOLDS REPORT THEY ARE “JUST MANAGING” FINANCIALLY OR “CANNOT MAKE ENDS MEET”

SUBJECTIVE SELF-ASSESSMENT OF HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SITUATION, ST. LOUIS, 2014

SIMILAR PERCENTAGES IN ST. LOUIS AND CINCINNATI REPORT JUST MANAGING OR NOT MAKING ENDS MEET

PERCENT OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS REPORTING THAT THEY “CANNOT MAKE ENDS MEET” OR ARE “JUST MANAGING”

8% OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS IN ST. LOUIS ARE POOR – BUT 18% ARE “NEAR POOR”

We define 2,500 Jewish households in

• St. Louis as “poor” since their household

income relative to household size falls below 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG), and the respondent does not say the household has extra money or is well off. We define another 5,900 Jewish households as near poor. Their incomes relative to their household sizes fall between 150% and 250% of FPG.

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED TO BE “POOR” OR “NEAR POOR”

POOR AND NEAR-POOR HOUSEHOLD INCOME THRESHOLDS FOR DEFINING THE POOR AND NEAR POOR

ANNUAL FEDERAL INCOME LIMITS FOR DEFINITION OF POOR AND NEAR-POOR (ROUNDED)

IN ST. LOUIS AND CHICAGO, SIMILAR LEVELS OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS ARE POOR

PERCENT OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS DEFINED AS POOR, TYPICALLY UNDER 150% OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES

CHESTERFIELD HAS THE FEWEST POOR JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS OF ANY MAJOR JEWISH AREA OF RESIDENCE

PERCENT OF POOR JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS IN EACH GEOGRAPHIC AREA

RESPONDENT AGE IS NOT STRONGLY LINKED TO BEING POOR OR NEAR POOR IN JEWISH ST. LOUIS

FOOD INSECURITY AFFECTS BOTH THE POOR & NEAR-POOR

Respondents were asked “In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?” .

PERCENT OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH REPORT SKIPPING MEALS OR CUTTING MEAL SIZE BECAUSE OF LACK OF MONEY FOR FOOD

36% OF ALL JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS SOUGHT ASSISTANCE FOR AT LEAST ONE OF HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH SOUGHT ASSISTANCE FOR:

Respondents were asked, “In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek help in dealing with housing or financial assistance?”

JEWISH POOR AND NEAR POOR SEEK HELP FOR HOUSING AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS SEEKING HELP FOR HOUSING OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

67% OF THOSE SEEKING HELP WITH HOUSING OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOUND GETTING HELP VERY DIFFICULT

“In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek help with housing or financial assistance?

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH:

SEEKING HELP FOR SENIORS IN THE HOUSEHOLD

“In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek services for an adult who is 65 or over in your household?”

• 10% of all households with seniors sought services for a senior in

the household (21% of seniors living alone).

• 2% found getting assistance for these issues very difficult (none of

the seniors living alone), compared to 68% who found it very easy to get help (86% of seniors living alone).

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WITH SENIORS WHICH:

SEEKING HELP IN FINDING A JOB OR CHOOSING AN OCCUPATION

“In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek help in finding a job or choosing an occupation?”

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH:

SEEKING HELP FOR CHILDREN WITH A DISABILITY

“In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek help for a child who has a physical, developmental or learning disability, or other special needs?”

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN WHICH:

SEEKING HELP FOR ADULTS WITH A DISABILITY

“In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek services for an adult of any age with a disability, including Alzheimer’s?”

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH:

SEEKING HELP FOR SERIOUS OR CHRONIC ILLNESS

“In the past 12 months, did you (or anyone else in your household) seek help in coping with a serious or chronic illness?

PERCENT OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHICH:

18% OF JEWISH RESPONDENTS REPORT FAIR OR POOR HEALTH

JEWISH RESPONDENT HEALTH IS:

MORE JEWISH SENIORS AGE 75+ REPORT POOR OR FAIR HEALTH COMPARED TO EXCELLENT HEALTH

3,000 JEWISH SENIORS LIVE ALONE IN ST. LOUIS The 3,000 Jewish seniors who live alone are potentially at high risk of social isolation.

• Of the 3,000 Jewish seniors living alone, 64% have an adult child in

the St. Louis area, who could assist them if needed.

• But, about 1,000 Jewish seniors living alone have no adult child

living in the St. Louis area, or do not have any adult children at all.

The health status of Jewish seniors living alone is problematic.

• 12% of Jewish seniors living alone report “poor” health, and another

28% report “fair” health;

• In sharp contrast, only 2% of Jewish senior respondents living with
• ther people in the household are in poor health, while 21% are in

fair health.

INTERMARRIAGE AND RAISING CHILDREN AS JEWS

DEFINING INMARRIAGE AND INTERMARRIAGE Inmarried Couples

• Both spouses currently identify as Jewish.
• Inmarried couples include “conversionary” couples where a spouse

became Jewish through conversion or some other process.

Intermarried Jewish Couples

• One spouse identifies as Jewish, while the other spouse is not Jewish.

48% OF ALL MARRIED COUPLES ARE INTERMARRIED*

PERCENT OF MARRIED COUPLES IN ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE INMARRIED/INTERMARRIED

*Intermarriage rates are calculated for currently married respondents and spouses only, and does not include the very few marriages of other adults in the household.

INTERMARRIAGE RATES VARY BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Intermarriage rates are relatively low in Creve Coeur, Olivette/Ladue and University City/Clayton. Chesterfield’s rate is approximately the same as the community-wide 48% intermarriage rate.

PERCENT OF INTERMARRIED COUPLES BY GEOGRAPHIC SUB-AREA

• ST. LOUIS 2014 COUPLES’ INTERMARRIAGE RATE OF

48% ALMOST TWICE THE COMPARABLE 1995 RATE

PERCENT OF MARRIED COUPLES WHO ARE INTERMARRIED

INTERMARRIAGE HIGHEST AMONG THE YOUNGEST RESPONDENTS

Few respondents are under age 35, but the pattern of intermarriage is consistent with the intermarriage data among those 35-49, lending some confidence to the under 35 data presented above. PERCENT OF COUPLES CURRENTLY INTERMARRIED BY AGE OF THE RESPONDENT

*Only currently married respondent/spouse couples included in the analysis. Read: of currently married couples, 63% of who married since 2000 are intermarried compared to 7% of respondents married prior to 1970.

THE COUPLES’ INTERMARRIAGE RATE HAS LEVELED OFF SINCE LEAPING IN THE 1980S

PERCENT OF INTERMARRIED COUPLES BY YEAR / DECADE MARRIED: ST. LOUIS, 2014

JEWISH ST. LOUIS INTERMARRIAGE RATES ARE LOWER THAN NATIONAL RATES REPORTED BY PEW RESEARCH CENTER, 2013

17,600 CHILDREN LIVE IN ST. LOUIS AREA JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS

*In all tables, percentages may not add precisely due to rounding for

• presentation. Data have been extrapolated for children with missing data on age
• f the child.

52% OF CHILDREN ARE BEING RAISED JEWISH-ONLY, ANOTHER 10% AS PARTLY JEWISH

CHILDREN IN ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS ARE BEING RAISED:

DENOMINATION SHARPLY SHAPES PATTERNS OF RAISING CHILDREN

THE YOUNGEST CHILDREN (AGES 0-4) ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE RAISED AS PARTLY JEWISH OR UNDECIDED

*“All Unmarried Households” includes unmarried partners, divorced, separated, widowed, and never-married households. Totals and percentages may not add exactly due to rounding for presentation; percentages based on unrounded data.

43% OF ALL CHILDREN, JEWISH AND NOT, HAVE INTERMARRIED PARENTS

ALMOST ALL CHILDREN IN INMARRIED HOUSEHOLDS ARE BEING RAISED JEWISH-ONLY; VS. 27% IN INTERMARRIED HOUSEHOLDS

27% OF CHILDREN IN INTERMARRIED HOUSEHOLDS ARE BEING RAISED JEWISH; 44% OF INTERMARRIED HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE SYNAGOGUE MEMBERS

CHILDREN ARE BEING RAISED Inmarried Respondents All Intermarried Respondents Intermarried Respondents - Synagogue members Jewish only 88% 27% 44% Partly Jewish 3% 18% 38% Undecided, DK 8% 10% 16% Not Jewish/No Religion <1% 26% 0% Not Jewish, Other Religion <1% 19% 2% Totals 100% 100% 100% (6,800 children) (7,500 children) (2,700 children)

JEWISH EDUCATION OF CHILDREN

OF ALL CHILDREN AGE 5-17 LIVING IN JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS, 41% ARE NOT NOW RECEIVING ANY JEWISH EDUCATION

CURRENT JEWISH EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN AGES 5-17 IN

• ST. LOUIS JEWISH

HOUSEHOLDS

81% OF JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN CURRENTLY RECEIVE SOME JEWISH EDUCATION – COMPARED TO 13% OF NON-JEWISH RAISED CHILDREN

CHILDREN NOT BEING RAISED AS JEWS – JEWISH EDUCATION JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN – JEWISH EDUCATION

AGE OF JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN SHAPES CURRENT JEWISH EDUCATION IN INTERESTING PATTERNS

WIDE DENOMINATIONAL VARIATION IN CURRENT JEWISH SCHOOL CHOICES FOR JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN

IN-MARRIED PARENTS PROVIDE JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN WITH FAR MORE INTENSIVE JEWISH SCHOOLING THAN DO THE INTERMARRIED

CURRENT CHILDREN’S JEWISH EDUCATION OF JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN: INTERMARRIED JEWISH COUPLES CURRENT CHILDREN’S JEWISH EDUCATION OF JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN: INMARRIED JEWISH COUPLES

CURRENT JEWISH EDUCATION OF JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN: HOUSEHOLD NOT A SYNAGOGUE MEMBER CURRENT JEWISH EDUCATION OF JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN: SYNAGOGUE-MEMBER HOUSEHOLDS

JEWISH-RAISED CHILDREN OF SYNAGOGUE MEMBERS RECEIVE MORE INTENSIVE JEWISH EDUCATION THAN JEWISH CHILDREN OF NON-MEMBERS

BEING JEWISH IN ST LOUIS

*Questions marked with an asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

JEWISH ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS: ABOUT 60% OF ALL RESPONDENTS FEEL VERY WELCOME AT JEWISH EVENTS, GO TO A SEDER (PAGE 1)

MODERATE-LOW JEWISH ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS – 13% KEEP KOSHER, 17% ALWAYS/USUALLY LIGHT SHABBAT CANDLES (PAGE 2)

*Questions marked with an asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

JEWISH RITUAL AND PRACTICE, 1995 AND 2014

*Questions marked with asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

NON-JEWISH RESPONDENTS FEEL MORE WELCOME AT JEWISH EVENTS THAN “NO DENOMINATION – NO RELIGION” JEWISH RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ALL RESPONDENTS WHO REPORT FEELING WELCOME OR UNWELCOME AT JEWISH EVENTS

WIDE VARIATIONS IN FREQUENCY OF FRIENDSHIPS WITH OTHER JEWS

JEWISH FRIENDSHIPS: ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS

MOST SAY THAT BEING JEWISH IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THEIR LIVES

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING JEWISH: JEWISH RESPONDENTS

FOR ALMOST HALF OF JEWISH RESPONDENTS IN 2014, BEING PART OF A JEWISH COMMUNITY IN

• ST. LOUIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PART OF A JEWISH COMMUNITY: JEWISH RESPONDENTS

WHILE 38% OF JEWISH RESPONDENTS ARE VERY ATTACHED TO ISRAEL, ONE-OF-FOUR IS NOT EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO ISRAEL

EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO ISRAEL: JEWISH RESPONDENTS

In 1995, 60% of Jewish respondents identified as Reform, 21% as Conservative, 3% as Orthodox and 11% “other.”

ABOUT HALF (47%) OF JEWISH RESPONDENTS IDENTIFY AS REFORM, 20% AS CONSERVATIVE, 5% AS ORTHODOX – 21% “JUST JEWISH”

DENOMINATIONAL SELF-IDENTIFICATION: ST. LOUIS SURVEY RESPONDENTS, 2014

ONLY HALF (51%) OF REFORM JEWISH RESPONDENTS FEEL BEING JEWISH IS VERY IMPORTANT IN THEIR LIVES RIGHT NOW

HOW IMPORTANT IS BEING JEWISH TO JEWISH RESPONDENTS

THE ST. LOUIS JEWISH LIGHT REACHES DENOMINATIONAL JEWS, NOT “NO RELIGION-NO DENOMINATION” JEWS, NON-JEWISH RESPONDENTS

PERCENT OF ALL RESPONDENTS WHO REPORT READING THE ST. LOUIS JEWISH LIGHT

YOUNG PEOPLE REPORT LOWER LEVELS OF JEWISH ENGAGEMENT ON MANY JEWISH INDICATORS

*Questions marked with asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

ON OTHER INDICATORS, YOUNG PEOPLE MATCH OR SURPASS THEIR ELDERS

*Questions marked with asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

*Questions marked with asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

WIDE GAPS IN JEWISH ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE INMARRIED & THE INTERMARRIED

INMARRIED VS. INTERMARRIED JEWISH ENGAGEMENT

SYNAGOGUE-MEMBER HOUSEHOLDS ONLY – JEWISH ENGAGEMENT OF CONSERVATIVE AND REFORM JEWS

MODERATE TO WIDE GAPS IN JEWISH ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN CONSERVATIVE AND REFORM SYNAGOGUE MEMBER HOUSEHOLDS

*Questions marked with asterisk were asked only of Jewish respondents.

SMALL NUMBERS IN JEWISH PRE-SCHOOL

Of all children in Jewish households ages 0-4, just 16% have gone to Jewish pre-schools (including infant care, day care and nursery schools).

CHILDREN’S EDUCATION – PRE-SCHOOL ATTENDANCE: ST. LOUIS SURVEY RESPONDENTS, 2014

PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN AGES 5-17 WHO REPORTED THAT AT LEAST ONE CHILD HAD ATTENDED

INFORMAL JEWISH EDUCATION OF CHILDREN

DENOMINATIONAL VARIATIONS STRONG FOR INFORMAL JEWISH EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN – JEWISH AND NOT JEWISH

LITTLE USE OF INFORMAL JEWISH EDUCATION BY THE INTERMARRIED – NOTEWORTHY IS THE LOW RATE OF TRIPS TO ISRAEL BY THEIR CHILDREN

INMARRIED VS. INTERMARRIED USE OF INFORMAL JEWISH EDUCATION

SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP IS ALMOST A PRE-CONDITION FOR USING JEWISH CAMPS, ISRAEL TRAVEL AND JEWISH YOUTH GROUPS

SYNAGOGUE MEMBER VS. NON-MEMBER USE OF INFORMAL JEWISH EDUCATION

HIGHER INCOME MEANS HIGHER PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN IN INFORMAL JEWISH EDUCATION (CAMPS, ISRAEL TRIPS, YOUTH GROUPS)

LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY TO REPORT COST A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER FOR SYNAGOGUE OR JCC MEMBERSHIP

PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WHICH REPORT COST PREVENTED THEM FROM SYNAGOGUE OR JCC MEMBERSHIP

LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS MORE LIKELY TO REPORT COST A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER FOR THEIR CHILDREN’S JEWISH EXPERIENCES

PERCENT OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN WHICH REPORT COST PREVENTED THEM FROM SENDING A CHILD TO:

JEWISH GIVING

62% OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS DONATED TO A JEWISH CHARITY, VS. 84% TO OTHER (NOT SPECIFICALLY JEWISH) CAUSES

PERCENTAGE OF ST. LOUIS JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS THAT REPORT MAKING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS IN YEAR PRECEDING SURVEY

ALMOST ALL HOUSEHOLDS (91%) MAKE CHARITABLE DONATIONS, BUT JUST 62% GIVE TO JEWISH CAUSES

THE AMOUNT DONATED IS HIGHER FOR NON-JEWISH CAUSES THAN FOR JEWISH CAUSES

AMOUNT DONATED PER CAUSE

WEAKER COMMITMENT TO JEWISH GIVING AMONG YOUNGER JEWS

STRONG DENOMINATIONAL VARIATIONS IN JEWISH PHILANTHROPIC GIVING

DONATIONS TO JEWISH CAUSES BY DENOMINATION

INTERMARRIED CONTRIBUTE JEWISHLY AT LOWER LEVELS THAN DO THE INMARRIED

INMARRIED VS. INTERMARRIED PHILANTHROPY

RELATIONSHIP TO ISRAEL

SINCE 1995, TRAVEL TO ISRAEL HAS INCREASED, ESPECIALLY AMONG JEWS 18-34

INCOME IS A MAJOR INFLUENCE ON VISITING ISRAEL

VERY WIDE VARIATIONS IN VISITING ISRAEL BY JEWISH DENOMINATION

JEWISH RESPONDENT TRAVEL TO ISRAEL BY DENOMINATION

ATTACHMENT TO ISRAEL IS MUCH HIGHER AMONG ORTHODOX AND CONSERVATIVE JEWS THAN AMONG REFORM JEWS

EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO ISRAEL BY DENOMINATION – JEWISH RESPONDENTS

The proportion of all respondents – Jewish and not Jewish combined – who think Israel is sincerely trying to make peace equals those who do not believe; 34% answer “yes,” 34% answer “no,” and the remainder have no opinion (the survey took place before the war in Gaza). Age of respondent shapes the “yes” answers.

ARE ISRAELI LEADERS “MAKING A SINCERE EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT A PEACE SETTLEMENT WITH THE PALESTINIANS?”

ARE PALESTINIAN LEADERS “MAKING A SINCERE EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT A PEACE SETTLEMENT WITH ISRAEL?”

The proportion of all respondents – Jewish and not Jewish combined – who think the Palestinians are sincerely trying to make peace with Israel is much lower than the proportion who think Israel is sincere – 4% believe the Palestinians are sincere compared to 34% who believe the Israelis are sincere (the survey took place before the war in Gaza). Age has only a slight impact on attitudes.

MAJOR THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS

• 1. SINCE 1995, THE NUMBER OF JEWISH

HOUSEHOLDS HAS GROWN

• 32,900 Jewish households in 2014 – 34% growth since

1995 Implications: Growth represents a challenge and

• pportunity for communal leadership – a challenge,

because more people means more needs; and an

• pportunity, because there are now more people to engage

in Jewish life.

• Only 5% of all respondents currently plan to move from
• St. Louis in the next two years.
• Even among respondents under age 35, few plan to

move outside the St. Louis area.

• 55% of survey respondents were born in the St. Louis

area. Implications: A stable community provides a good platform for planning and community development.

• 2. THE ST. LOUIS JEWISH COMMUNITY IS STABLE,

WITH FEW PLANNING TO LEAVE THE AREA

• 3. YOUNG ADULTS ARE A LARGE, DIVERSE &

CONCENTRATED SEGMENT

• Nearly a quarter of people in Jewish households are

young adults (18 to 34); in University City/Clayton and St. Louis City, more than half are 18-44.

• Young adults are less likely to give to Jewish causes; on

the other hand, they are the most likely to be very attached to Israel. Implications: Engagement of young adults in Jewish life should continue to be a communal priority, responding to their vantage point, and to their diversity as a group and targeting the geographic areas where young adults predominate.

• 4. LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN JEWISH

HOUSEHOLDS ARE NOT JEWISH OR PARTLY JEWISH

• Of the 89,000 adults and children in St. Louis Jewish

households, 11% are “Partly Jewish” and 31% are not Jewish. Implications: Building Jewish community with people without strong Jewish roots requires creativity. For example, the large number of very young children in intermarried households who are being raised partly Jewish

• r “uncertain,” argues for more Jewish early childhood and

Israel experiences for less connected young families.

• 5. MANY JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS ARE HIGHLY

ENGAGED IN JEWISH LIFE; BUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER ARE NOT

• Jews with no denomination/no religion are less Jewishly

engaged than the denominationally identified.

• Intermarried households are less Jewishly engaged than

inmarried households. Implications: A targeted effort to build Jewish engagement focusing on these two key groups – Jews with no denomination/religion and intermarried households. There is no magic formula; experimenting with cultural programming probably needs to be part of the effort.

• 6. THERE IS A GEOGRAPHIC DIVIDE BETWEEN MORE

& LESS ENGAGED JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS

• 60% of Jewish households live in areas with large

numbers of Jewish households, relatively high Jewish residential density and higher rates of Jewish connection – Creve Coeur, Chesterfield, University City/Clayton & Olivette/Ladue.

• 40% of Jewish households live in areas with fewer Jewish

households, low Jewish density, high intermarriage, low affiliation –St. Charles County, St. Louis City, Des Peres/Kirkwood/Webster, North County Residual & South County Residual.

• 6. GEOGRAPHIC DIVIDE (CONTINUED)

Implications: Communal leadership will need to decide what, where and how much to invest in building Jewish social, cultural and possibly physical infrastructure in areas

• f low density and low engagement. Whatever programs

are developed to try to connect less engaged Jewish households, in the end choices will have to be made “on the ground.”

• 7. 26% OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS IN ST. LOUIS ARE

POOR OR NEAR-POOR

• Poor and near-poor Jewish households have difficulty

making ends meet and struggle with food insecurity and issues of employment.

• For many Jewish programs, cost is a barrier to

participation for poor and near-poor households. Implications: The Jewish community may need to review its efforts to supplement public programs to combat poverty. Near-poor Jewish households may be candidates for more Jewish communal support as they are ineligible for many public programs.

LEARN MORE! JFedSTL.org/CountMeIn