david graham, l. d. staetsky and jonathan boyd · national jewish community survey jews in the...

NATIONAL JEWISHCOMMUNITY SURVEY

Jews in the United Kingdom in 2013:Preliminary findings from the National Jewish Community SurveyDavid Graham, L. D. Staetsky and Jonathan Boyd

Institute for Jewish Policy Research

© Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means, now known or hereinafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing of the publisher.

jpr / report

Published by Institute for Jewish Policy Research

ORT House, 126 Albert Street, London NW1 7NEe-mail [email protected] website www.jpr.org.uk

Registered Charity No. 252626

Institute for Jewish Policy Research January 2014

jpr / report

£

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) is a London-based independent research organisation, consultancy and think-tank. It aims to advance the prospects of Jewish communities in Britain and across Europe by conducting research and developing policy in partnership with those best placed to influence Jewish life.

Authors

Dr David Graham is a Senior Research Fellow at JPR and Honorary Associate at the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies, University of Sydney. He has spent many years writing about Jewish identity and the demography of Jews in Britain, and has published widely for academic, professional and general interest audiences both nationally and internationally. His most recent publications include a series of papers on the 2011 UK Census, the 2011 Australian Census, statistical assessments of the impact of Jewish educational initiatives, and attitudes towards Israel. David holds a doctorate from the University of Oxford.

Dr L. D. Staetsky is a Senior Research Fellow at JPR and Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Sociology at the University of Cambridge. Dr Staetsky's expertise spans the disciplines of demography, applied statistics and economics, and his recent work has focused on the demography of the developed world, with a particular interest in mortality and migration, and on Jewish and Israeli demography. A former researcher and analyst at the Central Bureau of Statistics in Israel and RAND Europe, he holds an MA in Demography from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a PhD in Social Statistics from the University of Southampton, UK.

Dr Jonathan Boyd is Executive Director of JPR, and a specialist in the study of contemporary Jewry and education. His most recent publications include papers and reports on the 2011 UK Census, antisemitism and Jewish life in contemporary Europe, British Jewish identity, and child poverty in the British Jewish community. He holds a doctorate in educational philosophy and lifelong learning from the University of Nottingham, a BA and MA in modern Jewish history from University College London, and is a former Jerusalem Fellow at the Mandel Institute in Israel.

The National Jewish Community Survey was conducted by JPR, with data gathering managed by Ipsos MORI. JPR is particularly indebted to Pears Foundation for its generous financial support, and to Jewish Care; UJIA; Norwood; Nightingale Hammerson; the Board of Deputies of British Jews; the Movement for Reform Judaism; Liberal Judaism; Masorti Judaism; and the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation, each of which helped to fund this study. In addition, we are grateful to the following individuals and foundations who also contributed generously to the research: The Haskel Foundation, The Family Foundations Trust, The Gavron Foundation, The Atkin Foundation, The Maurice Hatter Foundation and Sir Harry Djanogly.

JPR Report January 2014 Jews in the United Kingdom in 2013: NJCS preliminary findings 1

Table of Contents

Survey highlights 3

1. Introduction 5

A unique opportunity 5

Just scratching the surface 5

Acknowledgements 6

2. Jewish behaviour 7

Jewish religious life and engagement 7

Kashrut (dietary laws) 7

Shabbat (the Sabbath) 7

Synagogue attendance 7

Festivals 8

Age and Jewish practice 9

3. Jewish beliefs 12

A sense of Jewish identity 12

Age and Jewish beliefs 12

4. Jewish belonging 15

Shifting identities 15

Retention and leakage 16

5. Exploring the Jewish religiosity age gradient 18

6. Intermarriage 19

Prevalence 19

Prevalence by year of marriage 19

Intermarriage and Jewish identity 20

7. Jewish education 22

Prevalence of Jewish school attendance 22

General attitudes towards Jewish schools 22

Parents’ views 24

Informal Jewish education 25

2 JPR Report January 2014 Jews in the United Kingdom in 2013: NJCS preliminary findings

8. Charitable giving 28

Amount given 28

Charitable priorities and the determinants of giving 28

9. Health and welfare 32

State of health 32

Care preferences 33

Social isolation 34

Care provision 35

Children’s welfare 37

10. First reflections on the findings 38

Are young people becoming more religious? 38

What is happening to the traditional middle-ground? 38

Are secular and cultural forms of Judaism on the rise? 38

Has the challenge of intermarriage been solved? 38

Is non-Orthodox Jewish school penetration reaching its peak? 39

Will charity begin at home, or end at home? 39

Jewish care homes, or care homes for Jews? 39

Will Jewish community organisations make active use of the data treasure trove now available? 39

Appendix 1: Methodology 41

Sampling strategy 41

Questionnaire and sample design 41

Measures of quality control 41

How representative is the sample of the Jewish population? 41

Ipsos MORI panel 42

Methodological conclusion 42

Appendix 2: NJCS Main file compared with the Panel file 44

Appendix 3: Project steering group and consultations 45

Steering Group 45

The consultation process 45


Survey highlights

NJCS is a national survey of the UK Jewish community conducted in June and July 2013. It contains data on 3,736 Jewish people and their households.

Jewish behaviour and beliefs• 57%ofrespondentsattendaFridaynightmealmostweeks;half(49%)

frequentlylightcandlesathomeonFridaynight;justunderoneinfive(18%)refrainsfromturningonlightsonShabbat(theSabbath).

• Respondentsprioritiseethicalandethno-culturalaspectsofJewishness(e.g.‘FeelingpartoftheJewishPeople’)abovereligiousbeliefandpractice(e.g.‘BelievinginGod’).

• Morerespondentsobservekashrut(Jewishdietarylaws)insidetheirhome(52%)thanoutsidetheirhome(36%).

• InalmostallaspectsofJewishreligiousbehaviour,youngerrespondentsaremoreobservantthanolderrespondents.

Jewish belonging• Aquarter(26%)ofrespondentsdescribethemselvesasbeing‘Traditional’;

asimilarproportion(24%)as‘Secular/Cultural’;andaminority(16%)as‘Orthodox’or‘Haredi’.18%describethemselvesas‘Reform/Progressive’.

• Comparedwithtypeofupbringing,theTraditionalgrouphasseenanetlossofathird(34%),whereastheSecular/Culturalgrouphasseenanetgainof63%.

• MostofthosewhoswitchedawayfromTraditionalmovedtoprogressiveorculturalpositions;aminoritymovedtoOrthodoxorHaredipositions.

• Overall,switchingfromthecentretowardsOrthodoxywasfaroutweighedbyswitchingfromthecentretowardssecularism.

Intermarriage• Ingeneral,intermarriageismorecommonamongthosewhomarriedmore

recently,butthesteepriseinintermarriagewhichoccurredpriortothe1990shasslowed,andthetrendisnowessentially‘flat’.

• Oneinfour(26%)respondentsinapartnershiphasanon-Jewishpartner.

• Ofthoseinmarriageswhicharecurrentlyintact,23%areintermarried;ofthosewhocohabitbutarenotmarried,61%haveanon-Jewishpartner.

• 10%ofthoseraisedOrthodox,12%ofthoseraisedTraditional,and39%ofthoseraisedReform/Progressive,areintermarried.

• 62%ofthosewhodescribetheircurrentJewishpositionasSecular/Culturalareintermarried.

• 76%ofthein-marriedattendaFridaynightmealmostweeks,comparedwith18%oftheintermarried.

Education• TherateofincreaseofJewishschoolpenetrationamongthosewhowerenot

raisedinOrthodox/Haredihomeshasbeenslowingdown,onlymarginallyincreasinginrecentyears.


• 51%ofrespondentsagedintheirtwentiesattendedaJewishschool.AmongthosewhowerenotraisedinOrthodox/Haredihomes,theequivalentproportionis38%.

• Overthree-quarters(77%)ofrespondentsbelieveJewishschoolsstrengthenpupils’Jewishidentity;61%believethatJewishschoolsincreasepupils’chancesofJewishin-marriage.

• WiththeexceptionofOrthodoxandHarediparents,Jewishschoolsaremostpopularamongmiddle-incomefamilies,butashouseholdincomerisesabove£110,000perannum,Jewishschoolsareincreasinglylesslikelytobechosen.

Charitable giving• 93%ofrespondentsreporteddonatingmoneytoacharity(Jewishorotherwise)

intheyearbeforethesurvey.Ofthese,38%gavelessthan£100;33%gavebetween£100and£500;and29%gaveover£500.

• Ahigherproportion(45%)ofrespondentsprioritisesnon-JewishcharitiesthanJewishcharities(37%).

• Intheyearbeforethesurvey,62%ofthosewithpersonalincomesbelow£20,000gavelessthan£100tocharity;almosthalf(48%)ofthosewithincomesabove£110,000gave£2,000ormore.ThosewhogivethelargestdonationstendtoprioritiseJewishcharities.

Health, care and welfare• Whenaskedabouttheirfuturecarepreferences,62%ofrespondentsaged65

andaboveexpressnoparticularpreferencefor‘careinaJewishenvironmentwithkosherfacilities’;bycontrast,97%ofOrthodoxrespondentsand75%of‘Traditional’respondentsinthisagegroupwouldpreferakoshercarehome.

• However,38%ofallrespondentsaged65andabovewouldprefertobecaredforina‘Jewishenvironmentwithkosherfacilities’,andafurther32%wouldpreferan‘environmentwithaJewishethos,butnotnecessarilywithkosherfacilities’.

• Overhalf(53%)ofrespondentsagedintheirninetiesare‘limitedalot’intheirdailyactivitiesduetoahealthconditionordisability.

• Almostoneinfive(18%)respondentslooksafteracloserelativewithlong-termill-healthoradisability.Ofthese,58%dosoforuptofivehoursperweek;18%dosoformorethan20hoursperweek.

• 8%ofrespondentshaveachildwithalearningand/oraphysicaldisability.

• 15%ofrespondentswithchildrenofschoolagehaveachildwithspecialeducationalneeds(SEN);62%ofthesehave‘Cognitionandlearningdifficulties’(suchasdyslexia).Half(51%)ofchildrenwithSENhaveanofficialSENstatement.


Introduction

HavingaccesstohighqualitydataontheJewishpopulationoftheUnitedKingdomisabasic,butessentialneedofallJewishorganisations.ItenablesthemtobetterunderstandtheirmarketintermsofJewishpracticesandattitudes,andtoassessempiricallytheeffectivenessoftheirprogrammesandservices.Indeed,withoutsuchdata,policyplanninginevitablysuffers–Jewishcommunityleadersandpolicy-makersarecompelledtomakedecisionsonthebasisofanecdoteorsupposition,whichcanresultinpoorly-consideredinvestments,andaninabilitytosupportJewishlifewithadequatecapacityorresource.

JPRexiststodeliversuchdata,andiscommittedtohelpingcommunityleadersandpolicy-makersutilisethemtoinformtheirthinking.Itisessentialthatthefinancialresourcesofthecommunityareinvestedaswiselyaspossible,andJPR’sresearchisconsistentlydesignedwiththisgoalinmind.WhilstresearchfindingsarenotmeanttocompelJewishleaderstoactinparticularways,theycanhelptoensurethatleadersarefullyappraisedofexistingtrendsanddevelopments,whichshouldconstituteakeyinputintostrategicthinkingandplanning.JPRachievesthisbyengaginginanongoingprocessofaccessing,creatingandanalysingdata,whichitactivelysharesinordertoenhanceJewishlife.

A unique opportunitySeveralyearspriorto2011,JPRforesawaremarkableandunprecedentedopportunityfortheUKJewishcommunity,becauseofthecensusplannedforthatyear.Thepreviouscensus,in2001,wasthefirsttoincludeaquestiononreligion,andithadgeneratedthelargest,mostdetailedandaccuratedatasetthathadeverexistedonJewsinBritain.JPRtookfulladvantageofthis,andpublishedanextensiveandground-breakingreportonit.1Asexpected,the2011Censushasnotonlyprovidedasimilarlyvaluabledatasetinandofitself,butithasalsogenerateddatathatcanbedirectlycomparedwith2001,therebyenablingresearcherstoaccuratelytrackJewishpopulationchangeovertime.

1 Graham,D.,Schmool,M.andWaterman,S.(2007).“JewsinBritain:asnapshotfromthe2001Census.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.

Asacommunity,weareextremelyfortunatetohaveaccesstosuchdata,giventheirexceptionalbreadthanddepth.TheygiveushighlydetailedinformationaboutthegeographyoftheJewishpopulationanditsageprofile,aswellashealth,education,economicandsocialdata.Indeed,sincethefirstreleaseofthe2011CensusdatainDecember2012,JPRhasutilisedthemtosupporttheplanningworkofoveronehundredJewishcharitiesandfoundationsintheUK,aswellastogeneratemultiplereportsforgeneralconsumption.

However,evencensusdatahavetheirlimitations.WhilsttheytellusagreatdealabouttheUKJewishpopulation,theyarenotdesignedtoinvestigatetheintricaciesofBritishJewishlife.Toachievethat,aspecificsurveyofJewsisrequired,andso,inordertoaddJewishdepthtotheCensusfindings,JPRactivelypromotedtheideaofrunninganationalJewishsurveyalongsidethe2011Census.Weknewthatthis,combinedwiththecensusdata,wouldcreateadatasetofenormousvaluetoBritain’sJewishcommunity.

The2013NationalJewishCommunitySurvey(NJCS)servesthatpurpose,anditwasplannedmeticulouslytogeneratefiguresthatarecomplementarytocensusdata,andcanbeusedalongsidethem.Together,thesetwosourcesconstitutethemostcomprehensive,reliableandup-to-dateinformationpoolaboutcontemporaryJewishlifeintheUKthathaseverexisted,andprovideauniqueresourcetoallthoseconcernedwithsupportingthefutureoftheBritishJewishcommunity.

Just scratching the surfaceFromthegenesisoftheproject,JPRhasworkedinclosecooperationwithseniorrepresentativesofmanyofBritain’smajorJewishcharitiestoensurethatthedatagatheredrelatedirectlytothoseorganisations’mainareasofconcern.Asaresult,thesurveycoversseveralthemes,notablyJewishpractice,beliefandbelonging,intermarriage,Jewisheducation,charitablegiving,andcareandwelfare.Allofthesetopics,andmanymore,canbeinvestigatedindepthusingNJCSdata,andprovidecommunityorganisationswithawealthofinformationtosupporttheirwork.Thisfirst

1


reportcontainsourinitialfindings,anditshouldprovideallJewishorganisationswithsomenewdataandfoodforthought.

However,itonlyscratchesthesurfaceofwhatisnowavailable.Overthecomingmonthsandyears,weexpecttoproduceaseriesofconsiderablymoredetailedfollow-upreportsonseveraloftheissuesexaminedinthesurvey,someofwhichwillbeforgeneralconsumption,andothersofwhichwillbebasedonbespokeanalysistomeetdifferentorganisations’particularneeds.

Thefindingsarebasedonanonlineself-completionquestionnaireobtainedfromasurveyof3,736JewishhouseholdsacrosstheUnitedKingdomconductedinJuneandJuly2013.Accountingforallthemembersofthehouseholdssampled,atotalof9,895peopleareincludedinthissurvey.Tobeeligible,respondentshadtoself-identifyasJewish,livepermanentlyintheUK,andbeaged16orabove.Publisheddatainthisreporthavebeenweightedagainst2011UKCensusdataand2010synagoguemembershipdata.AdetailedmethodologicalsummarycanbefoundinAppendix1.

AcknowledgementsWeareextremelygratefultothemanyindividualsandorganisationswhoprovideduswiththeirbackingandhelpthroughouttheresearchprocess.Inparticular,weareindebtedtoTrevorPearsandAmyBraieratPearsFoundation–withouttheirextremelygenerousfinancialsupportandunerringdedicationtothisproject,nottomentiondata-ledpolicymakingingeneral,thissurveysimplywouldnothavebeenpossible.WealsowanttothanktheleadershipofJewishCare,UJIA,NightingaleHammersonandNorwood,whoinvestedtheirtimeandmoneyintheendeavour,and,insodoing,ensuredthatwestayedsteadfastlyfocusedonthemajorconcernsofthecommunity.TheBoardofDeputiesofBritishJewssimilarlyinvestedintheproject,asdidseveralofthesynagoguemovements:LiberalJudaism,MasortiJudaism,theMovementforReformJudaismandtheSpanishandPortugueseCongregation.WealsoreceivedgenerousfinancialsupportfromtheHaskelFoundation,theFamilyFoundationsTrust,theGavronFoundation,the

AtkinFoundation,theMauriceHatterFoundationandSirHarryDjanogly.

Manyotherindividualsprovideduswiththebenefitoftheirsupport,knowledge,adviceandexpertise,includingrepresentativesoftheDepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment,theAll-PartyParliamentaryGroupAgainstAntisemitism,theCommunitySecurityTrust,theInterlinkFoundation,JW3,JewishGeneticDisordersUK,theJewishLeadershipCouncil,theJewishVolunteeringNetwork,theJudithTrust,theMinistryofJustice,Prism,theSamuelSebbaCharitableTrustandtheUnitedSynagogue.AfulllistoftheSteeringGroupmemberscanbefoundinAppendix3.

Asever,Iwanttoacknowledgemyco-authors–DrDavidGrahamandDrLauraStaetsky–withwhomIamprivilegedtowork,andwhochallenge,inspireandteachmeeveryday.IamgratefultoofortheadviceandwisecounselofProfessorStephenH.MillerOBE,atrusteeofJPRandleadingexpertinthesocialscientificstudyofJewsinBritain,whoseinputatdifferentstagesoftheprojecthasbeeninvaluable.TherestoftheprofessionalteamatJPRhasalsobeencontinuallyengagedinsupportingthisprojectbehindthescenes,andIamparticularlyindebtedtoJudithRussell,RichardGoldsteinandCatrionaSinclairfortheirvaluableadvice,assistanceandguidance.

Finally,Iwanttoacknowledgetheextraordinaryvision,generosityandwisdomoftheJPRBoard,ledbyChairmanHaroldPaisner,PresidentLordHaskel,Vice-PresidentPeterLevyOBE,Vice-ChairmanStephenMossCBEandTreasurerBrianSmouha.Whenthisprojectwasindoubtduetoinsufficientfunds,theyinsistedweundertakeit,evenifdoingsowouldresultintheInstitutehavingtocutbackitscapacityinthelong-term.Recognisingthesignificantresearchopportunitythatexisted,theyweredeterminedtoseetheprojectthrough,andwenttogreatlengthstoensureittookplace.TheJewishcommunityowesthemahugedebtofgratitude.

DrJonathanBoydExecutive Director, JPR


Jewish behaviour

Jewish religious life and engagementJewishpracticeisoneoftheclearestwaysinwhichJewsdefinethemselvesandexpresstheirJewishness.Therefore,tobetterunderstandJewishpractice,thissectionexploresJewishnessbyexaminingsomeofthemostprevalentJewishritualpractices:observanceofkashrut(Jewishdietarylaws),Shabbat(theSabbath),Jewishfestivals(notablyPesachandYom Kippur)andsynagogueattendance.

Kashrut (dietary laws)InFigure1,threeaspectsofJewishdietarylawsareexplored.Itshowsthatjustoverhalf(52%)ofallrespondentsseparatemilkandmeatutensilsathome,andasimilarproportion(48%)onlybuyskoshermeatfortheirhome.However,italsoshowsthatoveraquarter(27%)ofrespondentspurchaseporkproductsfortheirhomes.

Comparingtheproportionofrespondentswhoonlypurchasekoshermeatfortheirhomeswiththeproportionwhoonlyeatkoshermeatoutsidetheirhomes,weseethatthereisacleardifference:observingkashrutathomeismoreprevalentthandoingsooutsidethehome(48%comparedwith36%respectively)(Figure1).Thesurveydidnotrevealwhythisisthecase,butwecan

hypothesisethatmanyrespondentsarechoosingtodifferentiatebetweenthehomeandtheoutsideworld.Inotherwords,theymaybeconsciouslychoosingtocreatea‘Jewishspace’athome,inordertoaccommodatetheJewishpracticesofallhouseholdmembersand/orextendedfamily.Hencewewouldobserveanapparentcontradictionbetweentherespondents’practicesinsideandoutsidethehome.

Shabbat (the Sabbath)RegardingobservanceofShabbat,itisclearthattheculturalaspectsofobservancearemorecommonlyadheredtothanthemorestringentreligiousrituals.Forexample,overhalf(57%)ofrespondentsattendaFridaynightmealmostweeks,andalmosthalf(49%)saythatcandlesarefrequentlylitintheirhomesonFridaynight(Figure2).Ontheotherhand,whenitcomestomorerestrictivepractices,onlyoneinfive(20%)respondentsrefrainsfromtravelonShabbat,andasimilarproportion(18%)refrainsfromturningonlightsonShabbat.

Synagogue attendanceIntermsofsynagogueattendance,overthree-quarters(76%)ofrespondentsattendsynagogueatleastonceayearontheHighHolyDays(i.e.RoshHashanah(JewishNewYear)andYomKippur

0

10

20

30

40

50

60No

Occasionally

Yes

Non-kosher meat eaten outside home?

Is non-kosher meat bought for the home?

Separation of milk and meat utensils at home

* Percentages are based on the total numbers of cases excluding vegans and vegetarians (N=3,075 for separation of milk and meat utensils at home; N=3,385 for type of meat bought for home, and N=3,212 for type of meat eaten outside home).

48%52%

25% 27%

48%

15%

49%

36%

Figure 1: Observance of Jewish dietary laws*

Yes No No NeverYes (but not

pork products)

Yes (including

pork products)

Occasionally Frequently

%

2


(DayofAtonement))(Figure3).Justoveraquarter(28%)attendsynagogueatleastweekly,andjustunderaquarter(24%)donotattendatall.

Unsurprisingly,synagogueattendanceisassociatedwithtypeofaffiliation,amongothervariables(suchasgender,geographyandsoon).Forexample,overhalf(53%)ofrespondentswhoself-identifyas‘Orthodox’2attendsynagogue

2 Thatis,respondentswhoself-definedas:‘Orthodox(e.g.wouldnotturnonlightonShabbat)’.Thisdefinitionof‘Orthodox’isusedthroughoutthisreport.

weekly,comparedwithathird(32%)ofthosewhoidentifyas‘Traditional’andjustoneinten(11%)ofthosewhoare‘Secular/Cultural’Jews.Similarly,menaremorelikelytoattendsynagogueservicesweeklyormoreoftenthanwomen.

FestivalsHistorically,themostcommonlyobservedJewishpracticeistheannualPesach(Passover)seder,andthissurveyfoundthatamajority(71%)ofrespondentsattendasedermealeveryyear(Figure4).Whilethesurveydidnotinvestigatewhythisparticularritualissocommonlyobserved,thefact

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100No

Frequently

Yes

Refrain from turning on lights on Shabbat?

Travel on Shabbat?

Candles lit in your home on Friday night?

Attend a Friday night meal most weeks?

57%

43%

23%28%

49%

14%

66%

82%

Figure 2: Observance of Shabbat (N=3,736 per item)

Yes No Never NeverOccasionallyEveryFriday

Occasionally Frequently

%

Yes No

20% 18%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Not at allOnly on the High Holy Days

On High Holy Days and some other festivals

About once a month

Most Sabbaths or more often

%

28%

18% 17%

14%

24%

Figure 3: Frequency of synagogue attendance in the past 12 months (N=3,736)


thatitgenerallytakesplaceinthehome,involvesafamilymealandisasmuchaculturalfamilialexperienceasitisareligiousone,almostcertainlycontributestoitspopularity.

FastingonYomKippurisalsoaverycommonlyobservedpractice,withalmosttwooutofthree(63%)respondentsdoingsoeveryyear.Again,thesurveydatadonotexplainwhy,althoughinthisinstance,theweightythemesofrepentanceandindividual/collectiveimprovementmayresonateformany,inadditiontothefactthatitalsoinvolvesfamilycomingtogether(forexample,tobreakthefast).

Age and Jewish practiceJewishidentityisnotstatic,andcross-sectionalsurveys,suchasNJCS,provideameansofassessinggenerationalchange.OneofthemoststrikingaspectsoftheNJCSdataarethecleardifferencesweobservebetweenolderandyoungerrespondentsintermsofreligiosity.Forexample,concerningtheseparationofmilkandmeatutensilsathome,thereisaclearagegradientbetweentheyoungestandoldestrespondents.Further,thisgoesintheoppositedirectiontotheonecommonlybelievedtobethecase:overhalf(55%)ofthoseagedunder40separatemilkandmeat,slightly

morethanthoseaged40-64(51%)who,inturn,aremorelikelytodosothanthoseaged65andabove(47%)(Figure5).Asimilarpatternisrevealedintermsofeatingkoshermeatathomeandavoidingnon-koshermeatoutsidethehome.

Further,weobservethesamegradientwithrespecttomostaspectsofShabbatobservance.Forexample,twooutofthree(65%)respondentsagedunder40attendaweeklyFridaynightmeal,comparedwith57%ofthoseaged40-64,andlessthanhalf(45%)ofthoseaged65andabove(Figure6).ThispatternisrepeatedwithrespecttoavoidingtravelonShabbatandrefrainingfromturningonlightsonShabbat.OneexceptiontothispatternrelatestothelightingofcandlesonFridaynights(Shabbateve),whereagedoesnotseemtobeafactor.

Finally,observingJewishfestivalsalsorevealsgreaterengagementamongtheyoungthantheold.Eightoutoften(79%)respondentsagedunder40attendaPassoversedereveryyear,comparedwithsevenoutoften(70%)of40-64yearoldsandsixoutoften(61%)ofthoseaged65andabove(Figure7).Possiblereasonsforthisreligiosityagegradientareexploredlaterinthisreport.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

NeverSome yearsMost yearsEvery year

Do you currently fast on Yom Kippur?At Passover do you currently attend a seder meal?

%

* For attending a seder meal (N=3,736); for fasting on Yom Kippur percentages are based on the total numbers of cases excluding those who do not fast ‘for health reasons’ (10% of the total sample) (N=3,298).

71%

10% 11%8%

63%

6% 8%

24%

Figure 4: Observance of festivals*


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aged 65+ yearsAged 40-64 yearsAged 16-39 years

Refrains from turning on lights on Shabbat

Currently never travels on Shabbat

Candles currently lit at home every Friday night

Attends a Friday night meal most weeks

65%

57%

45%49%

46%

26%

17%

8%

Figure 6: Observance of Shabbat by age (N=3,736)

52%

%

28%

10%

18%

* Percentages are based on the total number of cases excluding vegans and vegetarians (N=3,075 for separation of milk and meat and N=3,385 for type of meat bought for home. For type of meat eaten outside the home (N=3,365) vegans and vegetarians captured in the previous question on type of meat at home were excluded.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Age 65 and aboveAge 40-64Age under 40

Never eat non-kosher meat outside own home

Only meat from a kosher butcher bought for home

Milk and meat utensils separated at home

55%51%

47%

54%

43% 42%

34%

25%

Figure 5: Observance of Jewish dietary laws by age group*

47%

%


* N=3,736 (for attending a seder meal); for fasting on Yom Kippur percentages are based on the total numbers of cases excluding those who do not fast for health reasons (N=3,298).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Fast on Yom Kippur every yearPassover Seder every year

79%

61%

70% 70%

62%

53%

Figure 7. Observance of Jewish festivals by age group*

%


Jewish beliefs

A sense of Jewish identityBeyondreligiouspractice,anothermeansofinvestigatingrespondents’JewishnessistoexploretheirattitudestowardskeyJewishreligious,historical,national,culturalandethicalmatters;inotherwords,theirbeliefs.Respondentswereaskedhowimportant,orotherwise,theyfelttwentydifferentitemsweretotheirownsenseofJewishidentity.TheresultscanbeseeninFigure8,whichshowstheproportionofrespondentswhoidentifiedanitemasbeingeither‘Very’or‘Fairly’important.

Themostimportantbeliefsarethoseassociatedwithethicalandethno-culturalthemes.Forexample,theideathat‘Strongmoralandethicalbehaviour’isimportanttobeingJewishisnearuniversal(92%)andisthetopiteminthislist.Threeoutofthetopfiveitemsaredistinctlyethno-cultural:‘RememberingtheHolocaust’,‘FeelingpartoftheJewishPeople’,and‘Combatingantisemitism’.

Bycontrast,religiousbeliefsareclearlyofsecondaryimportancetotherespondents,withfouroutofthebottomfiveitemsbeingreligiouslyoriented.Thus,onlyabouthalforfewerrespondentsfeelthat‘BelievinginGod,’‘Keepingkosher,’‘Prayer’and‘StudyingJewishreligioustexts’areimportantintermsoftheirownsenseofJewishness.Thesomewhatmodestpositionof‘SupportingIsrael’(11thoutof20)isalsostriking(Figure8).SomemightfindthissurprisinggiventhecentralityofIsraelinmuchofJewishprivateandpublicdiscourseandfindingsfrompreviousresearch.3Thatsaid,aconsiderablemajority

3 JPR’s2010surveyoftheattitudesofJewsinBritaintowardsIsraeldidnotinviterespondentstosituatetheimportancetheygavetosupportingIsraelinthewidercontextofotherexpressionsofJewishidentity.However,whilenotdirectlycomparablewiththefindinghere,82%maintainedthatIsraelwasa‘Central’oran‘Important’partoftheirJewishidentityinthatstudy,ratherhigherthanthe69%suggestedbytheNJCSdata.See:Graham,D.andBoyd,J.(2010).“Committed,concernedandconciliatory:TheattitudesofJewsinBritaintowardsIsrael.Initialfindingsfromthe2010IsraelSurvey.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.

(69%)doesconsiderIsraeltobeimportanttoitsJewishidentity.

‘MarryinganotherJew’isalsoofrelativelylowimportance(13thoutof20)torespondents.However,itshouldalsobenotedthatmanyrespondents(46%)regardedthisas‘Veryimportant’;indeed,measuredbythiscriteriaalone,itisthesixthmostimportantitem.

Age and Jewish beliefsAbriefexaminationoftherelationshipbetweengenerationaldifferencesinattitude(basedon‘Veryimportant’responsesonly)againrevealssomenotabledifferencesbyage.Indeed,onamajorityofitems(14outofthe20),cleargenerationaldifferencesinattitudeareevident.Forexample,olderrespondentsaremoreinclinedtofeelthat‘SupportingIsrael’isaveryimportantaspectoftheirpersonalJewishidentitythanyoungerrespondents(Figure9).4Olderrespondentsarealsomorelikelytofeelthat‘Combatingantisemitism’and‘Volunteeringtosupportcharity’aremoreimportantthantheyareforyoungerrespondents(notshowngraphically).Ontheotherhand,youngerrespondentsaremorelikelythanolderrespondentstofeelthat‘SharingJewishfestivalswithmyfamily’and‘Keepingkosher’are‘Veryimportant’.

Ingeneral,itwasobservedthatforitemsrelatingtoethnocentricandethicalaspectsofJewishidentity(e.g.Combatingantisemitism,RememberingtheHolocaust,andDonatingfundstocharity),olderrespondentsaremoreinclinedtoratethemasveryimportantthanyoungerrespondents.Bycontrast,foritemsrelatedtoreligiouspractice,youngerrespondentsaremoreinclinedtoratethemas‘Veryimportant’thanolderrespondents.

Finally,sixitemsexhibitnocleargenerationaldifferencesintermsofsenseofimportancetoone’sJewishidentity,suggestingthereissome

4 Note,however,thatthisrelationshipwasnotevidentinJPR’s2010IsraelSurveydata(ibid.).

3


inter-generationalconsensusonthesematters.5Thesearemoredisparatethanthetwoprevioussets,butinclude‘BeliefinGod,’‘MarryinganotherJew’and‘Jewishculture’(music,art,etc.)(Figure9).Itisnotobviouswhytheseitemsdonotdiscriminatebetweenthegenerations,althoughthereisnoinherentreasonwhyany

5 Theseitemswere:MarryinganotherJew;Jewishculture(Jewishmusic,literature,art);Havinganethnicidentity;Havingareligiousidentity;Workinghardandbeingsuccessful;andBelievinginGod.

ofthetwentyitemsshoulddoso.Interestingly,although‘BeliefinGod’isanovertlyreligiousitem,itisnotnecessarilyrelatedtoJewishpractice,whichmayexplainwhy,atleastforthisitem,anagerelationshipisnotevident.Possiblereasonsforthisreligiosityagegradientareexploredlaterinthisreport.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fairly importantVery important

Studying Jewish religious texts

Socialising in predominantly Jewish circles

Prayer

Keeping kosher

Believing in God

Observing at least some aspects of the Sabbath

Working hard and being successful

Marrying another Jew

Having a religious identity

Supporting Israel

Volunteering to support charity

Jewish culture (Jewish music, literature, art)

Donating funds to charity

Having an ethnic identity

Sharing Jewish festivals with my family

Supporting social justice causes

Combating antisemitism

Feeling part of the Jewish people

Remembering the Holocaust

Strong moral and ethical behaviour

55%

40% 41%

28%

27%

38%

54%

31%

25%

41%

32%

36%

61%

41%

45%

29%

26%

42%

30%

22%

30%

19%

35%

30%

27%

25%

17%

35%

32%

21%

28%

25%

20%

Figure 8: “How important or unimportant are each of the following to your own sense of Jewish identity?” (N=3,736)*

* The full range of answer options were: Very important, Fairly important, Fairly unimportant, Very unimportant, Don't know. The twenty items were automatically randomised for each respondent.

14%

27%

46%

38%

39%

60%

67%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

age 65 and aboveage 40-64Age under 40

Jewish

cultu

re

(Jew

ish m

usic,

art)

Mar

ryin

g

anoth

er Je

w

Believ

ing

in G

od

Sharin

g Jewish

festi

vals

with

my f

amily

Keepin

g kosh

er

Supporting so

cial

justi

ce ca

uses

Supporting

Israe

l

32%

41%

46%

36%39%

26%27%25%

Figure 9. Importance of different aspects of Jewishness to respondents’ ‘own sense of Jewish identity’ by age (N=3,736)*

47%

% 32%30%

33%

* Percent answering ‘Very important’ to each item for selected variables.

30%28%

25%

61%

53%

45%

50%

43%44%


Jewish belonging

Shifting identitiesJewishidentityisalsoconcernedwithaffiliation,notonlyintheformalsenseofsynagoguemembership,butintermsofgeneralalignmentwithoneparticularformofJudaismoranother,orwhereonefeelsone‘belongs’withintheJewishcommunity.Historically,socialresearchersinBritainhavefocusedonasetofcategoriesrelatingto‘religiouslifestyle’which,throughself-classification,tendtodiscriminatebetweenrespondentsmoremeaningfullythansynagoguemembershipalone.6

NJCSfoundthatjustoveraquarter(26%)ofrespondentscurrentlyconsiderthemselvestobe‘Traditional’,almostasmanywhoconsiderthemselvestobe‘Secular/Cultural’(24%).Aminority(16%)describedthemselvesas‘Orthodox’or‘Haredi’7(Figure10).

Thesurveyalsoaskedrespondentstodescribetheirupbringingusingthesamecategoriesofself-identification.Thisprovidesanothermeasureofchange,althoughunlikethegenerationalchangeexaminedabove,itisusedasaproxyformeasuringchangeovertime.8

6 MillerS.M.(1998).“TheStructureandDeterminantsofJewishIdentityintheUnitedKingdom”inKrausz,E.andTulea,G.(eds.)Jewish Survival: the identity problem at the close of the twentieth century.NewJersey:TransactionPublishers,chapter14.p.3;Schmool,M.andMiller,S,(1994).“WomenintheJewishcommunity:SurveyReport.”London:TheDaCostaPrintandFinishingCompany.

7 Thesizeofthe‘Haredi(strictlyOrthodox,Hasidic)’groupinthesampleisnotfullyreflectedinthe‘currentpractice’figures.Thisisbecausetheterm‘Haredi’isnotnecessarilyusedbyallthosewhomightotherwisebeconsideredHaredibyothers.AnotherindicatorinthesampleismembershipoftheUnionofOrthodoxHebrewCongregations(‘Union’),a‘Haredi’synagogalorganisation.WhilstsomerespondentsdescribethemselvesasHarediandbelongtotheUnion,notalldo,andothersaremembersoftheUnionbutdonotusetheterm‘Haredi’todescribetheirJewishpractice.Takingsuchdifferencesintoaccount,wefindthat13%ofthesamplecanbeconsidered‘Haredi’.

8 Strictlyspeaking,thistypeofchangeispreferablymeasuredbyeitherrunningcross-sectionalsurveysovertwoormoretimeperiods,oralongitudinalstudywhichtracksthesamegroupofindividualsovertime.Longitudinalstudiesareveryexpensivetorun,and

Examinationofthesedatarevealsaconsiderableamountofdynamismor‘switching’.Forexample,whilstaquarter(26%)ofthesampleiscurrentlyTraditional,twooutoffive(40%)saidtheywereraisedthatway,indicatingconsiderablemovementawayfromTraditional(Figure10).Thenetlossamountstooverathird(34%)ofthe‘Traditionalbyupbringing’group(Table1).Tosomeextent,thisisthecontinuationofapre-existingtrend:JPRdatafromoveradecadeagoshowedthatwhile37%ofrespondentswerecurrentlyTraditional(in2001/2002),overhalf(53%)saidtheyhadbeenbroughtupthatway.9

IncontrasttotheTraditionalgroup,thecategorywhichhasgainedthemost‘newcomers’inthepresentsurveyisSecular/Cultural:theproportionthatiscurrentlySecular/Cultural(aquarter(24%)ofthesample)representsanincreaseofwelloverhalf(63%)relativetotheproportionwithaSecular/Culturalupbringing(Table1).

Thelossofoneinthreeformerly‘Traditional’adherentshasbroadersignificancethanthe

cross-sectionalsurveysneedtousecomparablesurveymethodologiesandquestionwording.

9 ThedataarefromtwoJPRsurveys,oneinLondonandtheSouth-eastandoneinLeeds(N=4,474).Forthepublishedreportsonthesesurveys,see:Becher,H.,Waterman,S.,Kosmin,B.andThomsonK.(2002).“AportraitofJewsinLondonandtheSouth-east:acommunitystudy.London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch;andWaterman,S.(2003).“TheJewsofLeedsin2001:Portraitofacommunity.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.

Table 1. Percentage difference between upbringing count and current count for each identity category (N=3,736)

Self-defined Jewish identity

Percentage change from upbringing to

current position

Secular/Cultural +63%

Just Jewish +4%

Reform/Progressive +30%

Traditional -34%

Orthodox +12%

Haredi (strictly Orthodox) +38%

4


witheringoftheformerlydominantcategory.Inabsoluteterms,itslossisequivalentto15%oftheentiresample,butperhapsofgreatersignificance,Traditionalistheonlycategoryexhibitinganykindofupbringing-to-currentdecline.Inotherwords,thisswitchawayfromTraditionalissuggestiveofashakeoutofthemiddlegroundwithintheBritishJewishcommunity,sincethecategoryTraditionalhascustomarilybeenseenastheplaceholderforcentristor‘middle-of-the-road’OrthodoxJudaism.10

Retention and leakageExaminingthisfurther,itisimportanttoconsidernotonlywhereindividualshaveswitchedfrom,butalsowheretheyareswitchingto.Nogroupretained100%ofitsupbringingcohort;thehighestlevelofretentionwasamongthe‘Haredi’groupat76%.Thusallgroupshaveeachexperiencednet‘leakage’ofadherentstootherstrands.Forexample,47%ofthoseraisedTraditionalswitchedaway;some(13%)movedtothereligious‘right’(OrthodoxorHaredi),butthemajority(33%)movedintheoppositedirection—tomoreprogressiveorculturalpositions(Figure

10 ItisarguablethatasimilartrendisoccurringintheUnitedStates.Seeforexample:Lugo,L,Cooperman,A.,et.al.(2013).APortraitofJewishAmericans.WashingtonDC:PewResearchCenter.

11).AsimilarpictureispaintedbythoseraisedOrthodox—ofthosewhoswitchaway,aminoritymovedtothe‘right’inreligiousterms,butmostmoved‘left’.

Reform/Progressivealsoexhibitsthispatternofretentionandleakage.Justoverhalf(53%)ofrespondentswhowereraisedReform/ProgressivearestillReform/Progressivetoday.However,aswithTraditional,47%havemovedawayfromthiscategory;some(10%)switchedtothe‘right’(mainlytoTraditional),butoverathird(37%)moved‘left’tomoresecularandculturalpositions.

Themainbeneficiaryofallthisswitching,inbothabsoluteandrelativeterms,hasbeenSecular/Cultural.Ithasalsomaintainedahighlevelofretention11andgained‘adherents’fromeverytypeofdenomination.

11 SincethesurveywasonlyeligibletopeoplewhocurrentlydefinethemselvesasJewish,thosewhowereraisedJewish(bywhicheverdenomination)butwhohavesubsequentlyleftJudaismaltogether,cannotbeaccountedforinthisanalysis.Thus,theonlypositionforSecular/CulturalJewstoswitchtootherthan‘right’inthiscategorisationofJewishidentityistonotidentifyasJewishatall.Suchamovementisnotcapturedinthissurveyduetotheconsiderablebarrierstosampling.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CurrentUpbringing

Haredi (strictly Orthodox)OrthodoxTraditionalReform/ProgressiveJust JewishSecular/Cultural

15%

10%

24%

40%

26%

12%

Figure 10: Type of Jewish upbringing and current Jewish religious practice (N=3,736)

%

10%

15%

18%

12%

3% 4%


Overall,althoughtherewassomemovementfromthecentretowardsOrthodoxy,themajorityofthemovementhasbeentothe‘left’,withsubstantialshiftsawayfromthecentreandtowardsmore

liberalandsecularexpressionsofJewishidentityinBritain.Thisiswhatwearedescribingastheshakeoutofthemiddleground.

0 20 40 60 80

Secular/Cultural

Just Jewish/Other

Reform/Progressive

Traditional

Orthodox

Haredi (strictly Orthodox)

Secular/Cultural

Just Jewish/Other

Reform/Progressive

Traditional

Orthodox


Secular/Cultural

Just Jewish/Other

Reform/Progressive

Traditional

Orthodox


Secular/Cultural

Just Jewish/Other

Reform/Progressive

Traditional

Orthodox


7%

17%

10%

1%

52%

6%

8%

12%

53%12%

11%

12%

10%

>1%

2%

2%

25%

7%

5%

53%

Figure 11: Denominational switching: from position of upbringing to current position (N=3,736)*

* Percentages for each group may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Up

bri

ng

ing

Ort

ho

dox

N=3

57

Current Jewish practice

Up

bri

ng

ing

Sec

ula

r/ C

ult

ura

l

N=4

31

Up

bri

ng

ing

Ref

orm

/Pro

gre

ssiv

e

N=6

15

Up

bri

ng

ing

Trad

itio

nal

N=1

,609

10%

4%

11%

67%


5Exploring the Jewish religiosity age gradientTheobservedreligiosityagegradientinthissurvey—i.e.thegreaterprevalenceofvariousJewishpracticesandbehavioursamongyoungerrespondentsthanolderrespondents—issignificant,notleastbecauseitrunscountertoacommonlyacceptednarrativethatyoungJewsinBritainarelessreligiouslyengagedthanolderJews.Whilethiscertainlywarrantsfurtherstudy,wecanprofferapotentialhypothesisatthisstageaboutwhythisisbeingseeninthesedata,andwhyitisnotsomethingthathasbeenidentifiedinpreviousstudies.

Atleastpartoftheexplanationmaylieinthesignificantandwelldocumenteddemographicgrowth(i.e.birthsoutnumberingdeaths)amongHarediandOrthodoxJewsinBritainsincetheearly1990s.12Thesegroupshaverelativelylargenumbersofchildren,andthereforeexhibitdisproportionatelyyoungageprofiles:thisisreflectedinFigure12,whichshowsthatoverhalf(51%)ofOrthodoxand63%ofHaredirespondentsareunder40yearsold,comparedwithaboutathirdamongotherstrands.Inaddition,OrthodoxandHaredirespondentsalsomakeup

12 See:Graham,D.(2013).“2011CensusResult(EnglandandWales):ATaleofTwoJewishPopulations.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch;Vulkan,D.andGraham,D.(2008).“PopulationTrendsamongBritain’sStrictlyOrthodoxJews.”ReportoftheCommunityPolicyResearchGroup.London:BoardofDeputiesofBritishJews.

adisproportionatelylargepartoftheyoungercohortsinthissurvey—24%ofunder40sareOrthodox/Haredi,comparedwith15%ofthe40-64agegroupandjust7%ofthe65+agegroup.

Ontheotherhand,therehasbeenamarkedincreaseintherejectionoforganisedreligioninBritain’swidersociety.Thisisreflected,forexample,inasignificantriseinthenumberofpeoplereporting‘NoReligion’intheUKCensus,whichincreasedby74%between2001and2011.Indeed,today,oneinfourpeopleintheUKhasnoreligion.SinceJews,onaverage,arenotimmunefromsocialtrendsintheworldaroundthem,aJewishshiftinthisdirectionmaywellbeoccurring;indeed,thisiswhatNJCSseemstobeindicating(seeFigure10).Whatisinterestingaboutthishowever,isthatthis‘secularisation’appearstobehappeningamongolderrespondentstoagreaterextentthanamongyoungerrespondents.However,itisdistinctlypossiblethatthisissimplybecauseyoungergroupsarebeingdemographically‘replenished’byhighbirthratesamongthemostOrthodox–i.e.thatitisasideeffectofthisdemographicchange.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Secular/cultural

Traditional

Reform/Progressive

Just Jewish

Orthodox


31%

28%

32%

31%

13%

6%63%

26%

51%

61%

36%

35% 36%

38%

40%

37%

35%

32%

Figure 12: Current Jewish alignment by age group (N=3,736)

31%

31%

34%

60%

67%


Intermarriage

PrevalenceForsometimenow,akeycommunalconcernhasbeenthepotentiallynegativeimpactofintermarriageonJewishlifeandthesizeofthecommunityinBritain.13Althoughthereismuchdebateaboutwhetherintermarriageshouldbeviewedinsolelynegativeterms,14herethefocusisontheoverallprevalenceofintermarriage,which,amongallcurrentlypartneredrespondentsinthissample,is26%.Thatistosay,oneinfourrespondentsinapartnershiphasanon-Jewishpartner(Table2).

However,prevalenceofintermarriagevariesbymanycriteria.Forexample,amongallmarriedrespondentswithintactmarriages,23%havenon-Jewishspouses.Bycontrast,amongcohabitingrespondents,thelevelisfarhigher—61%haveanon-Jewishpartner.

Genderisalsoadiscriminatingfactorinintermarriage.JewishwomeninthesampledemonstrateaslightlyhigherpropensitytowardsintermarriagethanJewishmen(28%versus25%respectively).However,thedatashowthat,

13 See,forexamples:Gidley,B.andKahn-Harris,K.(2010).Turbulent Times: The British Jewish Community Today.London:Continuum;Sacks,J.(1994).Will We Have Jewish Grandchildren? Jewish Continuity and How to Achieve it.London:VallentineMitchell.

14 Somehavearguedintermarriagecanhavepositiveexpansionaryimplications(suchaspotentiallybroadeningthenumberofpeopleinvolvedinJewishfamilyandcommunallife).Forexample,ifthreeoutoftenJewsintermarry,then,intheory,threemorepeoplearepotentiallyinvolvedinacommunity.

amongmarriedrespondents,therearemanymorefemaleconvertsthanmaleconverts.ThissuggeststhatJewish-bornmenaremorelikelytopartnernon-JewishwomenwhosubsequentlyconverttoJudaism,thanJewish-bornwomenarelikelytopartnernon-Jewishmenwhosubsequentlyconvert.ThiscontradictoryfindingisprobablyaresultoftheJewishcustomofmatrilinealdescent:whereaschildrenofintermarriedJewishwomenwillbeacceptedasbeingJewish,thisisgenerallynotthecaseforthechildrenofintermarriedJewishmen.

OneofthemostdiscriminatoryvariablesforassessingpropensitiestowardsintermarriageisJewishidentity.ThesurveyshowsthatintermarriageamongcurrentlymarriedrespondentswhoexperiencedaHarediupbringing,isessentiallynon-existentinthissample.AmongthoseraisedOrthodoxitis10%,butforthosewhoarecurrentlyOrthodoxitisalsoessentiallynil.Amongthoseraised‘Traditional’itis12%,butjust5%amongcurrently‘Traditional’respondents.Amongothergroups,theprevalenceofintermarriageismuchhigher.Indeed,itisashighas62%amongmarriedrespondentswhoarecurrentlySecular/Cultural.

Prevalence by year of marriageIntermarriageislesscommonamongmarriedpeoplewhosemarriagetookplaceinthe1970sorearlier,thanamongthosewhomarriedmorerecently.Lessthanoneinfive(18%)respondentswhogotmarriedinthe1970shasanon-Jewishspouse,comparedwithaquarter(25%)ofthosewhogotmarriedfrom2000onwards(Figure13).

Respondent’s status Partner Jewish Partner not Jewish Total N

All currently in a partnership 74% 26% 100% 2,672

Married and living with spouse 77% 23% 100% 2,440

Cohabiting with partner 39% 61% 100% 174

Male (currently in a partnership) 75% 25% 100% 1,328

Female (currently in a partnership) 72% 28% 100% 1,344

Table 2. Prevalence of intermarriage by various measures

6


However,thesteepriseintheprevalenceofintermarriagewhichtookplacepriortothe1980shasslowedconsiderably,andisnowanalmost‘flat’level.AdditionalanalysisindicatesthatthislevellingoffalsooccurswhenthecombinedgroupofReform/Progressive,JustJewishandSecular/Culturalrespondentsareanalysedseparately,

showing51%intermarryinginthe1990sand49%sincetheyear2000.

Thislevellingoffofintermarriageinrecentyearsisaninterestingfindingthatwillrequirefurtherinvestigationinfuturestudies.However,itisworthnotingatthisstagethatnotonlyhasthisalsobeenobservedintheUnitedStates,15butitappearstohavebegunwellbeforetheexpansionofJewisheducationalprogramminginBritaininthe1990s.

Intermarriage and Jewish identityOneofthemainreasonsthatcommunalconcernhasbeenexpressedaboutintermarriageisbecauseintermarriedcouplestendtobefarlessJewishlyengagedthanin-marriedcouples.Thisisalsoborneoutbyourdata,althoughthereareexamplesofwherethisisnotquitesoclear-cut.

IntermsofJewishreligiousbehaviour,starkdifferencesexistbetweenintermarriedandin-marriedrespondents,withallindicatorspointing

15 See:Kosmin,B.A.et.al.(1991).“HighlightsoftheCJF1990NationalJewishPopulationSurvey.”NewYork:CouncilofJewishFederations,chart14,p.14;Kotler-Berkowitz,L.,Cohen,S.M.et.al.(2003).“TheNationalJewishPopulationSurvey2000-01.Strength,challengeanddiversityintheAmericanJewishpopulation.”NewYork:UnitedJewishCommunities,table14,p.16;andLugo,Cooperman,et.al.,p.35,op.cit.,p.15.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000s

to 20

1319

90s

1980

s

1970

s

Before

1970

%

13%

18%

23%24%

Figure 13: Prevalence of intermarriage for all currently married respondents living with their spouse by year marriage took place (N=2,391)

25%

Jewish spouse Non-Jewish spouse Total

Type of Jewish upbringing(N=2,298)

Haredi (strictly Orthodox) 100% 0% 100%

Orthodox 90% 10% 100%

Traditional 88% 12% 100%

Just Jewish 69% 31% 100%

Reform/Progressive 61% 39% 100%

Secular/Cultural 52% 48% 100%

Current Jewish practiceN=(2,355)


Orthodox 99% 1% 100%





Table 3. Prevalence of intermarriage by type of Jewish upbringing and current Jewish practice for all currently married respondents living with their spouse


towardsthesameconclusion:respondentswithnon-JewishpartnersareconsiderablylessobservantthanthosewithJewishpartners.Forexample,whereasattendingasedermealatPesach(Passover)isalmostuniversal(93%)amongthein-married,thisisthecaseforlessthanhalf(48%)ofintermarriedrespondents(Table4).

IntermsofJewishbeliefs,thedifferencesbetweenin-marriedandintermarriedarealsostarkinmanyinstances.Forexample,thevastmajority(84%)ofin-marriedrespondentsmaintainthatsupportingIsraelisanimportantpartoftheirJewishidentity,comparedwithjusttwoinfive(42%)intermarriedrespondents.Theintermarriedarealsolesslikely

toconsidervolunteeringandcharitablegivingtobeimportantaspectsofbeingJewish(Table5).

Ontheotherhand,anumberofculturalindicatorssuggestthatthedifferencesbetweenthein-marriedandintermarriedgroupsareminimal.Forexample,73%ofin-marriedrespondentsand70%ofintermarriedrespondentsfeelthatJewishculture(theartsetc)isanimportantaspectofbeingJewish.OtheritemswhichunitemarriedandintermarriedJewsincludesupportingsocialjusticecauses,combatingantisemitismandrememberingtheHolocaust(Table5).

In-married (N=2,064)

Intermarried (N=608)

Attend a Passover (Pesach) seder meal ‘Every year/Most years’

93% 48%

Fast on Yom Kippur ‘Every year/Most years’

84% 33%

Attend a Friday night meal most weeks

76% 18%

Light candles at home ‘Every’ Friday night

70% 14%

Only buy meat for home from a kosher butcher

68% 4%

Not been to a synagogue service in the past 12 months

10% 58%

Table 4. Levels of observance of selected Jewish practices, in-married compared with intermarried*

* All respondents currently in partnerships

In-married(N=2,064)

Intermarried(N=608)

Supporting Israel 84% 42%

Volunteering to support charity

80% 53%

Sharing Jewish festivals with my family

93% 54%

Donating funds to charity

85% 60%

Jewish culture (Jewish music, art)

73% 70%

Supporting social justice causes

82% 77%

Combating antisemitism

89% 86%

Remembering the Holocaust

93% 87%

Table 5. Importance of beliefs (selected measures), in-married compared with intermarried*

* Proportion believing item is ‘Very important’ or ‘Fairly important’


Jewish education

Prevalence of Jewish school attendance Overall,almostoneinthree(30%)respondentshasattendedaJewishschoolforatleastpartoftheireducation,andthisisthecaseforalmostaquarter(23%)ofrespondentswhowerenotraisedinOrthodoxorHaredihomes(Table6).16

Jewishschoolattendanceismorecommonamongyoungerthanolderrespondents,reflectingasignificantchangeinattitudestowardsJewishschoolingthathasoccurredintheJewishcommunityinthelastgeneration.17Overhalf(51%)ofrespondentsintheirtwentiesattendedaJewishschoolatsomestage,comparedwithlessthanaquarterofthoseintheirfifties(23%)(Figure14).(Forrespondentswithschool-agechildren,overhalf(54%)currentlyhaveatleastonechildinaJewishschool,whichisinlinewiththesefindings.)18

FurtheranalysisofthedataindicatesthatamongthosewhowerenotraisedinOrthodoxorHaredihomes,therateofincreaseinthe

16 HaredichildrenareuniversallyeducatedinJewishschools,asarethevastmajorityofOrthodoxchildren.

17 See:Valins,O.(2003).“TheJewishDaySchoolMarketplace:TheattitudesofJewishparentsinGreaterLondonandtheSouth-easttowardsformaleducation.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.

18 Currently37%ofthosewithschoolagechildrenhavealltheirchildreninJewishschools,and17%havesomeoftheirchildreninJewishschools(N=785).

proportionofeachcohortattendingJewishschools(‘penetration’)hasbeendecliningforatleasttwentyyears(Figure14).Inotherwords,althoughmoreandmorepeoplearesendingtheirchildrentoJewishschools,onaveragethisrateofincreaseisshrinkingyearonyear.Forexample,Jewishschoolpenetrationamongnon-Orthodoxrespondentsintheirfortiesistenpercentagepointshigherthanforthoseintheirfifties,butitisjustthreepercentagepointshigherwhencomparingthemostrecentcohorts(i.e.respondentsintheirtwentieswiththoseintheirthirties).

General attitudes towards Jewish schoolsThequestionaboutwhatmotivatesparentstochooseaJewishschoolfortheirchildrenhasbeenexploredinpreviousJPRresearch.19Thepresentstudyprovidessomemoreup-to-dateinsightsintotheattitudesofrespondentstoJewishschools.

Overthree-quarters(77%)ofrespondentsbelievethatJewishschoolsstrengthenpupils’Jewishidentity.Further,aclearmajority(61%)alsobelievesthatJewishschoolsincreasethechancesofJewishin-marriage(Figure15).

Onothermatters,opinionsaremoredivided.Alargeminority(42%)believesthatwhenitcomestopreparingchildrenforcontemporaryBritishsociety,non-JewishschoolsarebetterthanJewishschools,althoughitisstrikingtonotethatoverathird(35%)ofrespondentsisunsureeitherway.Furthermore,opinionisalsodividedastowhetherJewishschoolsarebetterthannon-Jewishschoolsatimpartingpositivemoralvaluestochildren(32%agree,31%disagree).

RespondentswerealsoaskedtheirviewsaboutwhetherJewishschoolsshouldbepubliclyfunded,giventhattheyarereligiouslyandethnicallyselective.20Almosthalf(47%)expressedtheopinionthatpublicfundingforJewishschoolswasindeedappropriate,althoughaquarter(26%)feelsitisinappropriate(Figure15).

19 See:Valins,O.(2003).“TheJewishDaySchoolMarketplace”,op.cit.p.22.

20 Unlikemostothercountries,suchastheUnitedStatesandAustralia,‘faithschools’intheUKreceivesignificantpublicfunding.

All Non-Orthodox*

Any Jewish schooling (any stage)

30% 23%

At primary level only 12% 10%

At secondary level only 5% 5%

At both primary and secondary level

13% 8%

Table 6. Proportion of respondents who have attended a Jewish school (N=3,736)

* Includes all those who were not raised in an ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Haredi’ home

7


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

All except Orthodox/Haredi by upbringing (N=3,235)All (N= 3,736)

70+60-6950-5940-4930-3920-29

51%

45%

38%

23%20%

17%

Figure 14: Attendance of a Jewish school, by age and Jewish identity*

%

35% 35%

30%

14%

10% 9%

* Attendance refers to any primary and/or secondary Jewish schooling. Percentages are proportion of each age cohort.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Don't knowDisagree/Strongly disagreeNeither agree nor disagreeStrongly agree/Agree

Jewish schools should NOT be publicly fundedas they are culturally and religiously selective

Jewish schools are better at imparting positivemoral values than non-Jewish school

Non-Jewish schools are better at preparingchildren for contemporary British society

Jewish schools increase the chancesof children marrying other Jews

Jewish schools strengthenchildren's Jewish identity

5%

13%

61%

8%

77%

5%

22%9%

42%

23%28%

7%

9%31%

28%

26%

32%

Figure 15: Attitudes towards the role of Jewish schools (N=3,736)

47%21%

6%


Parents’ viewsWhilsttheproportionofJewishchildreninJewishschoolshasgrownsteadilyoverthepastfewdecades,itisimportanttoconsiderthelikelylimitstothisgrowth,since100%take-upisunrealistic,especiallyamongthenon-Orthodoxcommunity(asindicatedinthefindingsshowninFigure14).OneofthewaystoexplorethisistocontrasttheviewsofparentswhocurrentlyhavechildreninJewishschoolswiththosewhodonot.21

WhileitisunsurprisingthatparentswithchildrencurrentlyinJewishschoolsholdmorefavourableopinionstowardsJewishschoolsthanotherparents,thedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsareinstructive,notleastforprovidingsomeinsightintothemindsetofparentswhohavenotchosenJewishschools.

Forexample,evenamongthosewhodonotsendtheirchildrentoaJewishschool,three-quarters(75%)neverthelessbelievethatJewishschoolsstrengthenchildren’sJewishidentity.However,

21 ItshouldbenotedthatthechoiceofaJewishschoolisnotblackandwhite.SomeparentsmaychooseaJewishschoolforonechildandanon-Jewishschoolforanother.Further,someparentsmaypreferaJewishschoolatonestage(sayprimary)butanon-Jewishschoolatalaterstage.Inotherwords,someparentswhodonotcurrentlyhaveachildinaJewishschoolmayneverthelessbeinclinedtochooseaJewishschoolinthefuture,andviceversa.

thisgroupislessconvincedthatJewishschoolsincreasethechancesofin-marriage:justoverhalf(55%)agreesthattheydo,comparedwiththree-quarters(74%)ofthosewhohavechildreninJewishschools.

Interestingly,onlyabouthalf(47%)ofthoseparentswhohavenotchosenJewishschoolsfortheirchildrenbelievesthatnon-JewishschoolsarebetterthanJewishschoolsatpreparingchildrenforwiderBritishsociety.Andonlyoneinthree(33%)ofthisgroupfeelsthatJewishschoolsshouldnotbepubliclyfunded(seefootnote21).

Nodoubt,preconceivedopinionsaboutJewishschoolingingeneralaffectparentaldecisionsaboutwhetherornottochoosethispathfortheirchildren.Butwhatfactorsmayoperatetoinfluencethoseopinionsinthefirstplace?AmongthemanypotentialfactorsareJewishidentityandincome.Forexample,amongOrthodoxandHaredirespondents,thechoiceofaJewishschoolisalmostuniversal(93%and95%respectively)(Table8).Furthermore,two-thirds(65%)ofTraditionalparentsnowchooseJewishschoolsfortheirchildren.However,thisisthecaseforfarlowerproportionsofmoreprogressiveorsecularrespondents.

Incomeisalsorelatedtothechoicesparentsmakeaboutschools.When‘Orthodox’and‘Haredi’respondentsareremovedfrom

Statement Proportion of respondents agreeing* with statement who:

have children in Jewish schools

have children in non-Jewish schools

Jewish schools strengthen children’s Jewish identity 95% 75%

Jewish schools increase the chances of children eventually marrying other Jews

74% 55%

Non-Jewish schools are better at preparing children for contemporary British society than Jewish schools

18% 47%

Jewish schools are better at imparting positive moral values than non-Jewish schools

56% 21%

Jewish schools should NOT be publicly funded as they are culturally and religiously selective

2% 33%

Table 7. Attitudes of respondents with school-aged children towards Jewish schools by type of school currently chosen

* Percent who Strongly agree or Agree. Minimum N=783.


theanalysis(sinceJewishschoolingisnearuniversalforthesetwogroups),wefindthatnon-JewishschoolsaremorepopularthanJewishschoolsateverylevelofincome(Figure16).ThisanalysisalsorevealsaninterestingpatternwherebyJewishschoolsaremostpopularamongmiddle-incomefamilies,butashouseholdincomesrise(above£110,000peryear)Jewishschoolsareincreasinglylesslikelytobechosen.Furtherinvestigationisrequiredtoconfirmwhythisoccurs,butitstronglysuggeststhatJewishparentsare

choosingnon-Jewishprivateschoolswhentheycanaffordtodoso.Ifthisisthecase,itmayimplythatmanyparentsoutsidetheOrthodoxorHaredigroupswhohavethefinancialmeanstochoose,prefernon-JewishprivateschoolsoverJewishschools.22

Informal Jewish educationInadditiontoformalJewishschooling,thesurveyalsoexploredinvolvementininformalJewisheducation—orJewisheducationoutsidetheschoolsystem.Ofthevarioustypesexplored

22 ItshouldbenotedthatsomeJewishschoolsareprivate,especiallyintheHaredisector,althoughthisisanentirelyseparateeducationalmarketplace.

Children in Jewish schools No children in Jewish schools Total





Orthodox 93% 7% 100%


Table 8. Current Jewish identity of respondents with school aged children by type of school chosen (N=748)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No children in Jewish schoolsAny child in a Jewish school

£250,001+£150,001 – £250,000

£110,001 – £150,000

£70,001 – £110,000

£50,001 – £70,000

£30,001 – £50,000

£30,000 or less

* Note uneven income brackets.

35%38%

65%

46%

54%

33%

Figure 16: Household income of respondents with school aged children by type of school chosen (excluding Orthodox/Haredi respondents)* (N=615)

%

62%

38%

62%

67%

30%

70%

40%

60%


inthesurvey,themostcommonformofJewisheducationwascheder(part-timeclassesthroughasynagogue)and/oraBar/BatMitzvahceremony(61%and60%23respectively).Overhalfthesample(56%)reportedhavingbeenregularlyinvolvedwithaJewishyouthcluboryouthmovement.Almostoneinthree(31%)visitedIsraelaspartofanorganisedIsraeltour.Aboutoneinfive(22%)respondentshasaGCSE/A-levelqualificationinJewishstudiesand/orinHebrew.Oneinten(10%)participatedinagapyearprogrammeinIsrael.

Mostrespondents(88%)haveexperiencedatleastoneofthesethirteenactivities,andonaverage,respondentsreporteddoingbetweenthreeandfourofthem.

23 Amongmalerespondentsthisis84%,andamongfemalerespondentsitis38%.

WithanincreasinglylargenumberofJewishchildrenenteringJewishschools,wealsoexaminedwhethertherewasanyevidencetosuggestthatthisgrowthisundermininginvolvementininformaltypesofJewisheducation.However,aninitialassessmentofthedatasuggeststhisisnotthecase:theredoesnotappeartobeasubstitutionofformal(i.e.schooling)forinformalJewisheducation.Indeed,ateveryageband,respondentswhoattendedaJewishschoolhavedonemoreoftheinformalactivitieslistedthanthosewhodidnot(Figure18).Further,thereisnoclearindicationofaslackeningoffofthetrendforyoungerrespondentswhowenttoaJewishschool.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Taglit-Birthright Israel programme

Study at a yeshivah/seminary outside Israel

An organised Israel tour with a Jewish school

Study at a yeshivah/seminary in Israel

A gap year programme in Israel with a youth movement

GCSE/A-level in Jewish Studies and/or Hebrew

Jewish lessons from a relative or tutor

An organised Israel tour with a Jewish youth movement or organisation

A Jewish youth summer camp in the UK

Membership of a university Jewish society

Regular involvement in a Jewish youthclub/movement

Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony

Part-time classes in a synagogue or cheder

60%

56%

61%

39%

36%

31%

30%

22%

9%

7%

10%

Figure 17: Involvement in informal Jewish education, % (N=3,736)

4%

2%


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Did not attend a Jewish school Attended a Jewish school

85-8980-8475-7970-7465-6960-6455-5950-5445-4940-4435-3930-3425-2920-24

4.8

3.5

6.8

Figure 18: Mean number of informal Jewish educational activities experienced by respondents by age group (N=3,736)

Mea

n n

um

ber

of

item

s

5.9

3.4

5.0

5.5

4.4

5.7

3.9

3.1

4.4

3.0

4.1

2.83.1

2.7

3.4

2.6

3.2

2.3

3.0

2.6

3.2

2.3

1.72.0

1.6


Charitable giving

Amount givenOneofthekeytenetsofJudaismistohelplessadvantagedpeople,andtheproliferationofJewishcharitiesinthecommunityistestamenttotheimportanceofthisprinciple.24Indeed,thefuturefunctioningofthecommunityis,toalargeextent,dependentonthegenerosityofitsmembers.Itisthereforeimportanttounderstandwhogives,andhowmuchtheygive.

Ofthosewhoresponded,93%donatedmoneytoacharity(Jewishorotherwise),intheyearbeforethesurvey(Figure19).25Themostcommonamountgivenwasbetween£100and£500.Almosttwooutoffiverespondents(38%)gavelessthan£100overtheyear,andasimilarproportiongavebetween£100and£500.Although29%gaveover£500,large

24 See:Goldberg,J.andKosmin,B.(1998).“PatternsofcharitablegivingamongBritishJews.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch;andHalfpenny,P.andReid,M.(2000).“ThefinancialresourcesoftheUKJewishvoluntarysector.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.TheHalfpennyandReidreportfoundthattheUKJewishvoluntarysectoratthattimecomprisedjustunder2,000financiallyindependentorganisations.

25 9%ofrespondentschosenottoanswerthisquestion,andthefiguresinthissectionareexclusiveofthesenon-respondents.

charitabledonationswereinfrequent:3%oftherespondentsdonatedmorethan£10,000.

Charitable priorities and the determinants of givingRespondentswereaskedhowtheyhadprioritisedtheircharitablegiving.Agreaterproportionprioritisesnon-Jewishcharities(45%)thanJewishcharities(37%)(Figure20).Thisincludesaquarter(25%)whodonatedexclusivelytonon-Jewishcharitiesandjustunderoneinten(8%)whodonatedexclusivelytoJewishcharities.

Thesurveyalsoenquiredaboutprioritiesintermsofrespondents’preferredcharitablecauses.AsFigure21shows,nosinglecausedominates,butrather,prioritiesarewideranging.Justoveroneinthree(34%)respondentsprioritisesJewishcharitiesintheUK,whereas29%prioritiseGeneralUKcharities.Justoveroneinten(12%)prioritisesaidforthepooroutsidetheUK,andjustunderoneintenprioritisestheirgivingtoIsraelcharities.

Respondents’Jewishidentityiscloselyrelatedtotheirgivingpriorities.Forexample,almostall(95%)HaredirespondentsprioritiseJewishorIsraelcharities(Table9).Similarly,82%ofOrthodoxrespondentsalsoprioritisethese

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

More than £10,000

£2,001 – £10,000

£501 – £2,000

£101 – £500

£51 – £100

Up to £50Nothing

%

7%

16% 15%

33%

3%

Figure 19: Charitable giving (Jewish or otherwise) in the year prior to the survey*

18%

8%

* N=3,399. Percentages are calculated after exclusion of respondents who answered ‘Prefer not to say’.

8


charities.Bycontrast,just10%ofSecular/Culturalrespondentsdoso;theirprioritiesaregeneral(non-Jewish)UKcharities(44%)andoverseasaid(26%).

Ageisalsorelatedtoprioritisationofgiving.Youngerpeopletendtogivelessmoneytocharitiesthanolderpeople(becauseincome

generallyincreaseswithage).However,comparingthecharitableprioritiesofthedifferentgenerations,weseelittledifferencebetweenyoungerandolderrespondents(Figure22).TheoneexceptionisIsraelcharities,whicharemorelikelytobesupportedbyolderthanyoungerrespondents.(Thecategory‘Noneofthese’isalsoagesensitive,butitmaysimplyindicatethat

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

All

More

than

half

About half

Less

than

half

None

%

25%

20%18%

29%

Figure 20: Estimated proportion of total charitable giving specifically donated to Jewish charities*

8%

* (N=3,175) includes only respondents who disclosed they gave some money to charity in the past 12 months as well as the approximate amount given.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

None of t

hese

Israe

l char

ities

Aid fo

r the p

oor in o

ther

countri

es (n

ot UK)

Gener

al ch

ariti

es

in th

e UK

Jewish

char

ities

in th

e UK

%

34%

29%

12%

9%

Figure 21: Charitable giving priorities (N=3,736)

16%

Jewish charities in

the UK

General charities in the UK

Aid for the poor in other countries (outside the UK)

Israel charities

None of

these

Total N

Secular/Cultural 7% 44% 26% 3% 20% 100% 857

Just Jewish 25% 37% 10% 8% 20% 100% 387

Reform/Progressive 20% 41% 14% 7% 18% 100% 709

Traditional 52% 20% 4% 13% 11% 100% 984

Orthodox 67% 6% 4% 15% 9% 100% 476

Haredi (strictly Orthodox) 87% 0% 0% 8% 5% 100% 138

Table 9: Charitable giving priorities by current Jewish identity*

* Rows may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


youngerpeoplearelesslikelytohavestrongpreferencescomparedwitholderpeople,e.g.theyaremorelikelytogiveinequalmeasuretovariouscauses.)

Thedataalsoshowthatmenandwomenhavedifferentpriorities(Table10).Mostspecifically,menaremorelikelytoprioritiseJewishcharitiesthanwomen.Whereasfouroutoften(39%)menprioritiseJewishcharitiesintheUK,thisisthecaseforonlythreeoutoften(30%)women.TheoppositetrendisnotableforgeneralUKcharitiestowhichwomenaremorelikelytodonatethanmen.

Unsurprisingly,incomeisalsoanimportantfactorincharitablegiving(Table11).Thelargertherespondent’sincome,thegreateraretheircharitabledonationsinabsoluteterms.26Thus,62%ofthosewithpersonalincomesbelow£20,000gavelessthan£100tocharityintheyearbeforethesurvey,whereasalmosthalf(48%)ofthosewithincomesabove£110,000gaveatleast£2,000incharitabledonations.

Interestingly,incomeisnotonlyrelatedtothesizeofthedonation,butalsotothedestination.

26 Notethisisnotthesameas‘generosity’,measuredintermsoftheproportionofaperson’sincomedevotedtocharitabledonations.

Forexample,respondentswhoareleastlikelytoprioritiseJewishcharitiestendtogivethesmallesttotalcharitabledonations.Bycontrast,respondentswhoaremostlikelytoprioritiseJewishcharities,tendtogivethelargestcharitabledonationsoverall(Figure23).Inotherwords,thebiggestdonorsprioritiseJewishcharities.27

Ultimately,multiplefactorsareinvolvedinthelikelihoodofapersonmakingacharitabledonationandthesizeofthatdonation.Someofthesefactorseveninteractwitheachother,suchasageandincome(youngpeoplehavelowerincomesthanthoseinmiddleageandolder

27 Thiswasconfirmedbyassessingthefullspectrumofcharitablepriorities.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Age 65+Age 40-64Age under 40

None of theseIsrael charitiesAid for the poor in other countries (outside the UK)

General charities in the UK

Jewish charities in the UK

31%

36%36%

12% 12% 11%

Figure 22: Charitable giving priorities by age group (N=3,736)

%

32%

27%

30%

8% 8%

11%

18%16%

12%

Male N=1,799

FemaleN=1,941

Jewish charities in the UK 39% 30%

General charities in the UK 25% 33%

Aid for the poor in other countries

12% 12%

Israel charities 9% 9%

None of these 15% 16%

100% 100%

Table 10. Charitable giving priorities by sex


peoplehavelowerincomesduetoretirement).Futureworkwilldeterminewhichfactorsarethemostimportantindeterminingtheoutcome

ofJewishcharitabledonations,andindeed,whatismostlikelytopromptadonationinthefirstplace.

0

20

40

60

80

Above half or all to Jewish charitiesAbout half to Jewish charitiesBelow half or none to Jewish charities

Above £10,000£2,001 - £10,000£501 - £2,000£101 - £500£51 - £100Up to £50

59%

22%20%

48%

17%

35%

Figure 23: Estimated proportion of total amount given that was donated to Jewish charities over the previous 12 months (N=3,736)

%

55%

20%25%

35%

17%

48%

20%

9%

71%

25%

14%

62%

N Personal income Size of donation

Below £100 £101 - £500 £501 - £2,000 Above £2,000 Total

858 Under £20,000 62% 26% 8% 3% 100%

1,177 £20,000 - £50,000 35% 40% 18% 7% 100%

515 £50,001 - £110,000 17% 36% 29% 18% 100%

191 Above £110,000 9% 16% 27% 48% 100%

Table 11. Total amount of charitable donations in the 12 months prior to the survey by personal income of respondent*



9Health and welfare

TheNationalJewishCommunitySurveyexploredawiderangeofissuesofconcerntoJewishcharitiesoperatingacrossthecommunity,andinthissectionweinvestigatesomeoftheinitialfindingsrelatingtohealthandwelfare,especiallyintermsoftheelderlyandchildrenwithlearningdifficultiesanddisabilities.DespitetherecentboominOrthodoxandHaredibirths,28theJewishpopulationoftheUKisageingandhason-goingcareneeds,andinpartbecauseoftherecentboominJewishbirths,children’sneedsarelikelytobecomeagrowingissue.29ThissectiononlyscratchesthesurfaceoftheNJCSdatathathavebeengathered.

State of healthClearly,theabilityofpeopletocarryoutnormaldailyactivities(suchaswashinganddressing)becomeslimitedastheygetolder.Half(48%)ofallrespondentsreportexperiencingatleastsomelimitationincarryingoutsuchday-to-dayactivitiesbythetimetheyreachtheir

28 See:Graham(2013),op.cit.p.18;VulkanandGraham(2008),op.cit.p.18.

29 Seeforexample:Boyd,J.(2011).“Childpoverty

mid-seventies(Figure24).Bytheirnineties,thisproportionrisestofouroutoffive(81%).Indeed,overhalf(53%)ofpeopleintheirninetiesreporttheirday-to-dayactivitiesbeing‘limitedalot’duetoillhealth.

Withrespecttorespondents’currentstateofhealth,themostcommonhealthconcernisthebroadcategoryof‘painanddiscomfort’.Overhalf(55%)ofrespondentsaged65andabovereportsufferingsomelevelofpainanddiscomfort(Figure25).Intermsofmorespecificproblems,almosttwooutoffive(38%)respondentsinthisagegroupexperienceddifficultieswithwalking.Almostoneinten(9%)respondentsaged65andabovesaidthattheyhadproblemswhenitcametowashinganddressingthemselves.

Finally,althoughtheUK’sNationalHealthServiceprovidesfreehealthcareforall,justunderhalf(47%)ofallrespondentsneverthelessreportbeingcoveredbyaprivatehealthinsurancescheme.

anddeprivationintheBritishJewishcommunity.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Limited a littleLimited a lot

90+85-8980-8475-7970-7465-69Under 60

%

9%16%

22%

39%40%

Figure 24: Day-to-day activities limited because of a health condition or disability, by age (N=3,736)

40%

28%

53%

28%

14%9%6%

2%3%


Care preferencesOneofthemajorwelfareservicesonwhichthecommunitypridesitselfiscarefortheelderly.Therefore,thesurveyaskedrespondentshowtheymightwishtobecaredforwhentheyarenolongerabletocareforthemselves.Awidevarietyofpreferenceswasexpressed,butthemostcommondesire—fortwooutoffive(40%)respondentsaged65andabove—is‘Independentlivingwithaccesstocare/support’(Figure26).Oneinfive(21%)respondentswouldprefera‘Mixofrelativesandpaidprofessionalsinmyownhome’,whilstalmostoneinfive(17%)wouldprefertobesupportedby‘Paidprofessionalsinmyownhome’.Itisnotablethatjust6%ofthesampleaged65yearsandaboveexpressedapreferenceforacarehome,thetraditionalapproachtakenbythecommunityforlookingafteritselderlyandinfirmmembers.Ofcourse,desiresmaynotnecessarilycorrelatewithneedinthelongerterm.Despitethebestofintentions,thedesirefor‘Independentliving’orlivingathomemaynotultimatelybefeasibleformany.

Furtheranalysisindicatedthatrespondents’desiresdidnotsignificantlydifferbetweenthose

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

At least some problems washing/

dressing myself

At least some anxiety or depression

At least some problems with

performing work/housework

At least some problems

walking about

At least some moderate pain or discomfort

%

55%

38%

27%

22%

9%

Figure 25: Prevalence of specific health concerns, respondents aged 65 and above (N=970 per bar)

Other, 1%My relatives in their home, 1%

Care home

6%

My relatives in my own home

14%

Paid professionals in my own home

17%

Mix of relatives and paid professionals

in my own home21%

Independent living with access

to care/support40%

Figure 26: Current desires for future care, respondents aged 65 years and above (N=1,241)*

* The question asked: “Imagine that at some time in the future, you could no longer manage on your own and needed help with daily tasks such as getting up, going to bed, feeding, washing or dressing, or going to the toilet. If you had a choice about how you could be cared for, how do you think you would want to be looked after?”


withlimitationsintheirdailyactivitiesandthosewithoutlimitations.

Theserespondents(aged65yearsandover)werealsoaskedif,intheeventthattheyeverneededtobelookedafterinacarehome,itwasimportantthatthathomehadkosherfoodfacilities.Theanalysisrevealedthat,overall,alargemajorityofrespondents(62%)inthisagegrouphadnoparticularpreferencefor‘careinaJewishenvironmentwithkosherfacilities’.Thisisstronglyrelatedtorespondents’Jewishidentity:wefoundthat,amongOrthodoxrespondents,thedesireforakoshercarehomeisuniversal(97%),andamongTraditionalrespondentsitisalsoverystrong(79%).Butamongallotherrespondents,thedesireforkosherfacilitiesinacarehomeisconsiderablyweaker(e.g.16%forReform/Progressiverespondents)(Table12).

Social isolationThesurveyalsoenquiredintolevelsofsocialisolationbasedonthefrequencyofinteractionwithrelativesandfriends.Almostallrespondents(90%)reportspeakingtorelativesandfriendsweeklyormoreoften(Figure27).Thisisalsothecaseintermsofwrittencommunication,includingtextingandemail(87%).However,intermsofface-to-facevisits,thelevelsofcommunicationarelessfrequent:oneinfive(22%)respondentsvisitsrelativesandfriendsinfrequently(i.e.onceortwiceamonthorless),andalmosttwoinfive(38%)reportreceivingvisitsfromrelativesandfriendssimilarlyinfrequently.

Tosomeextent,ageisrelatedtothefrequencyofface-to-facecontactwithrelativesandfriends.Itappearstobelessofafactorintermsofreceivingvisits,butmoreofafactor

Table 12. Preference for a care home by type of facilities by current Jewish practice, respondents aged 65 and above (N=1,241)*

Prefer care in a Jewish

environment with kosher

facilities

Prefer care in an environment with

a Jewish ethos but not necessarily with

kosher facilities

Prefer care in an environment that is not specifically

Jewish

No preference

Total

Orthodox/Haredi 97% 2% 0% 2% 100%

Traditional 79% 17% 2% 2% 100%

Just Jewish 24% 50% 11% 15% 100%

Reform/Progressive 16% 62% 8% 14% 100%

Secular/Cultural 2% 31% 44% 23% 100%

Total (all 65+) 38% 32% 18% 12% 100%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Less than once a month or neverOnce or twice a monthOnce a week or more often

Relatives or friends come to visit

Visit relatives or friends

Correspond with relatives or friends by email, text or letter

Speak to relatives/friends on the phone/Skype etc.

6%

16%

6% 3%90%

7%

87% 8%

15%

22%

35%

Figure 27: Frequency of communication with relatives and friends by type of contact (N=3,736 for each category)*

62%

78%

* Bars may not sum to 100% due to rounding.



whenitcomestogoingouttovisitothers,suggestingthatmobilityplaysaroleinsocialisolation.Forexample,almostathird(31%)ofrespondentsaged65andoverjust‘sometimes’or‘rarely’goouttovisitfamilyandfriends,comparedwithaquarter(23%)ofpeopleaged40-64andjust13%ofpeopleagedunder40(Figure28).

Giventheever-changingwaysinwhichpeoplecommunicate,andtheveryhighpenetrationofonlinesocialnetworkingfoundinJPR’srecentsurveyofJewishstudentsintheUK,wealsoaskedaboutrespondents’useofsocialnetworkingwebsitessuchasFacebook.30Thedatashowrespondentseitherusesuchfacilitiesfrequently(atleastonceaweek)(55%)orrarely(40%).Ageisacrucialfactorindeterminingfrequencyofuse.Eighty-fivepercentofrespondentsagedunder40usesocialnetworkingsitesfrequently;bycontrast,76%ofrespondentsaged65andabovedosorarely.

Care provisionForthoserespondentswhoregularlyreceivecaresupporttocarryoutdailyactivities

30 See:Graham,D.andBoyd,J.(2011).“Homeandaway:Jewishjourneystowardsindependence.Keyfindingsfromthe2011NationalJewishStudentSurvey”.London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.

(suchaswashing,dressing,andhousework),supporttendsnottobeprovidedbyimmediatefamilymembersoffriends,orbypaidcarers,butratherby‘Otherpaidhelp’(68%),bywhichitisprobablerespondentsarereferringtoinformalpaidhelpwithactivitiessuchasshopping,cookingandsoon.Ofthosewhoregularlyreceivecaresupport,thevastmajority(89%)feelsthattheircarerspendstherightamountoftimewiththem,butsome(8%)feeltheyneedmorehelpthantheyarecurrentlyreceiving(N=222).

Almostoneinfive(18%)respondentsreportthattheylookafteracloserelativewithalong-termhealthconditionordisability(Table13).Oneinten(10%)looksafteranelderlyrelativewith‘physicalill-health/disability’.Thesurveyalsofoundthat7%ofrespondentslookaftersomeonewhoisnotelderlybutneverthelesssuffersfromalong-termmentalorphysicaldisabilityandwhoiseithertheirchildoranother(non-elderly)closefamilymember(whichcouldincludeadultchildren).

Theserespondentswereaskedtoestimatehowmuchtimetheyspendlookingafterthatcloserelative.Forthemajority(58%)itwasuptofivehoursperweek(Figure30),butformanyrespondents,careprovisiontakesupagreateramountoftheirtime—18%ofthosewho

0 20 40 60 80 100

Often*Sometimes*Rarely*

Age under 40

Aged 40-64

Aged 65+

Age under 40

Aged 40-64

Aged 65+

56%

68%

24% 60%16%

70%

20% 24%

18%

21%

35%

Figure 28: Frequency of communication with relatives and friends by type of contact (N=3,736 for each category)*

10%

13%

* Rarely = Less than once a month or Never; Sometimes = Once or twice a month; Often = Weekly or more often. Bars may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

87%

77%15%

9%4%

8%

Go

to

vis

it

rela

tive

s

and

/or

frie

nd

s

Rec

eive

vis

its

fro

m r

elat

ives

and

/or

frie

nd

s


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

OtherOther paid help

District nurse/health visitor

Friend/neighbour

Other relative

(not spouse)

Paid carer

Spouse

%

18.5%14.9%

11.7%

5.0%

67.6%

Figure 29: Who provides care/support to help you with your daily activities? (N=222 per category)

0.5%

8.1%

Yes 17.6%

An elderly family member with physical ill-health/disability

10.0%

An elderly family member with mental ill-health/disability

3.7%

A child under 18 in my family with physical ill-health/disability

0.7%

A child under 18 in my family with mental ill-health/disability

0.8%

Another close family member with physical ill-health/disability

3.5%

Another close family member with mental ill-health/disability

2.9%

Table 13. Prevalence of care given to close relatives with long-term ill-health or disability* (N=3,736 for each item)

* The full question asked was: “Do you look after, or give any regular help or support to, a close relative (parent, child, spouse, or sibling), either inside or outside your home, who is suffering from long-term ill-health or a long-term disability?” Respondents were directed not to count anything they did as part of their paid employment.

50 or more hrs/week

9%20-49 hrs/week

9%

6-19 hrs/week 24%

1-5 hrs/week 58%

Figure 30: Estimated total number of hours per week spent giving help or support to a close relative with a physical or mental disability (see Table 14) (N=658)


provideunpaidcareforcloserelativesdosoformorethan20hoursperweek.

Justunder8%ofrespondentsreporthavingcloserelatives(suchasparentsandspouses)currentlylivinginaresidentialcarefacility.31Oftheserespondents,amajority(61%)reportsthattheirrelativeislivinginaJewishfacility.

Children’s welfareNJCSalsoexploredotheraspectsofchildren’swellbeing.AmongtheconcernsofrelevancetotheJewishcommunityarespecialeducationalneeds(SEN)andlearningdisabilities.

Approximately15%ofrespondentswithchildrenofschoolagereportthattheirchild(andinafewcases,morethanonechild)hasspecialeducationalneeds.Thesurveynotedthathalf(51%)oftheserespondentssaytheirchildhasanofficialstatementofspecialeducationalneeds.ThemostcommonSENconditionis‘Cognitionandlearningdifficulties’(suchasdyslexia),applicabletowelloverhalf(62%)ofallSENcasesinthissample(Figure31).

31 Thoughitisunlikelydouble-countingactuallyoccurred,itcannotbetotallyruledouthere(e.g.itispossiblethattwodifferentrespondentsfromdifferenthouseholdswerereferringtothesameparentinacarehome).

Wealsoaskedallrespondentswithchildrenofanyage(i.e.notjustwithschool-agechildren),whetheranyoftheirchildrenhada‘learningdisability’ora‘physicaldisability’.32Intotal,5%ofparentsreporthavingachildwithsuchacondition.Ofthese,oneinfiverespondentsreportsthattheirchildhasbothalearningandaphysicaldisability(Table14).

32 Thequestionnaireprovidedthefollowingguidanceontheterm‘learningdisabilities’toensurethatrespondentsdidnotconfuseitwith‘learningdifficulties’:“By‘learningdisability’,wemeanwhatusedtobeknownasa‘mentalhandicap’e.g.Down’ssyndrome,FragileXsyndrome,cerebralpalsyetc.”Concerningphysicaldisabilities,itexplained:“By‘physicaldisability’wemeanproblemswithblindnessorseverevisualimpairment,deafnessorseverehearingimpairment,motorimpairmentorothertypesofphysicaldisability.”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Mental illness/depression/self-harming

Problems with sight, hearing, motor impairment or other types of physical disability

Emotional, social and/or behavioural difficulties (e.g. ADHD, etc.)

Difficulties with communication and social interaction (e.g. Autistic Spectrum Condition,

etc.)

Cognition and learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, etc.) 62%

34%

17%

16%

5%

Figure 31: Type of special educational need (whether SEN statemented or otherwise) (N=117 respondents per item)

4%

Any disability (N=2,651) 5%

Type of disability (N=155):

Learning disability only 42%

Physical disability only 38%

Learning and physical disability 20%

100%

Table 14. Respondents with children (of any age) who have learning or physical disabilities


10First reflections on the findingsAsaconclusiontothisreport,weraiseeightissuesthatemergeoutofthepreliminaryfindings,andhavepolicyimplicationsformultipleaspectsofcommunalserviceprovision.Ratherthanprovidepolicyrecommendationsorsolutions,whichisultimatelytheresponsibilityofserviceproviders,wepresenttheseissuesintheformofquestionswiththeintentionofinitiatingdebate.

Are young people becoming more religious?Forseveraldecades,therehasbeenastrongassumption,supportedbysocialresearchfindings,thatwitheverygenerationthatpasses,JewsarebecominglessreligiousandlessengagedinJewishcommunityorganisationsandactivities.Indeed,itwasthisnarrativethatinformedanunprecedenteddegreeofinvestmentinthe1990sinJewisheducationintheUK.Intriguingly,inthissurvey,onalmostallvariablesrelatingtoreligiouspracticeandbehaviour,weseeanagegradientindicatingthatyoungerrespondentsaremorereligiousthanolderrespondents.Thisisasurprisingandimportantfindingthatbegsthequestion:whyisthishappening?Thedataseemtosuggestthatitmayberelatedpredominantlytodemography:highbirthratesamongtheOrthodoxandHaredipopulationsmeanthatanincreasingproportionofJewsintheUKarebeingbornintoOrthodoxandHaredihomes,andthusthereisaconcomitantincreaseinreligiosityattheyoungerendoftheagespectrum.Fromapolicyperspective,communityleadersoughttocontemplatewhetherthisagegradientisheretostay,and,ifitis,whatitmightmeanfortheprovisionofservicesgoingforward.Furthermore,theindicationthatincreasedlevelsofreligiosityarerelatedsignificantlytodemographictrendsshouldalsocausesomereflectionabouttwodecadesofinvestmentinJewisheducation:howeffectivehasthisinvestmentbeen,andtowhatextenthasit–orhasitnot–beenafactorinthechangingagegradient?

What is happening to the traditional middle-ground?Thecategory‘Traditional’inthissurveyhascustomarilybeenseenastheplaceholderforcentristor‘middle-of-the-road’OrthodoxJudaismintheUK,andverymuchthemainstreamwithinthecommunity.However,whilst

Traditionalremainsthelargestcategoryinthesedata,itonlydoessobyonepercentagepoint,andofallgroupsexamined,itwastheonlyonetodemonstratenetshrinkage.Indeed,whereas40%describetheirupbringingas‘Traditional’,just26%describetheircurrentpositioninthatway.Bycontrast,thereiscleargrowthatthemostOrthodoxendofthecommunity,and,toanevengreaterextent,atthesecularend.Beyondtheobviousquestionofwhythisshrinkageisoccurring,thechangeraisesseveralimportantpolicyquestions,notleastwhattheimplicationsofthischangemightbeforJewishreligiouslifeintheUK,andforcommunityrepresentation?

Are secular and cultural forms of Judaism on the rise?Thesedatashowthatthe‘Secular/Cultural’groupwithintheUKJewishcommunityhasgrowntoagreaterextentthananyotheroverthecourseofthelifetimesofourrespondents.15%describetheirupbringingas‘Secular/Cultural’,but24%describetheircurrentpositioninthisway.Thisisastrikingfindingthatdemandsinvestigation.Somewillarguethatitprovidesevidenceofassimilation:growthinthissectormustbeseeninlightofthedeclinewitnessedamongthe‘Traditional’.OtherswillnotethattheSecular/CulturalappeartoexhibitanolderageprofilethanthemostOrthodox,therebysuggestingthatthegrowthmaybesomewhattemporaryorillusory.However,onecannotignorethefindingitself–thattheproportionofJewswhodescribethemselvesascurrentlysecularorculturalhasgrownsignificantlyrelativetotheproportionbroughtupthatway.Thisshouldpromptsomekeypolicyquestions,notleastthisone:whatroleshouldsecularandculturalJewishinitiatives,whichhaveseensomethingofaresurgenceinrecentyears,playinthewidercontextofBritishJewishlife?

Has the challenge of intermarriage been solved?Afterseveraldecadesofcommunalconcernabouttherisingprevalenceofintermarriage,itisevidentthatintermarriageisslowingdown.Indeed,theremayevenbeasuggestioninthedatathatithaspeaked.Partoftheexplanationforthisisrelatedtothechangingdenominationalprofileofthecommunity:theOrthodox/Haredisectorisgrowing,ithasayoungageprofileand


itexhibitsaverylowintermarriagerate,allofwhicharehelpingtodrivedowntheprevalenceofintermarriageintheJewishpopulationoverall.Yetwealsofoundclearevidenceofaslowingdownofintermarriageamongnon-Orthodoxgroups,whichdemandsfurtherinvestigation.Mightitbearesultofthegrowthofnon-OrthodoxJewishschools?Mightitbearesponsetomulticulturalisminsomeway?Mightitbeduetotheexistenceofamoreopenandwelcomingattitudetonon-Jewishpartnersinthenon-Orthodoxsectors?WhilstitwouldbeerroneoustoclaimthatintermarriageisnolongerasignificantphenomenonaffectingJewishlife,theseareimportantquestionstoconsiderifwewanttounderstandthecausesbehindthechangeweobserve,anddevelopeffectivepolicygoingforward.

Is non-Orthodox Jewish school penetration reaching its peak?TheproportionofJewswhoattendedaJewishschoolhassteadilyincreasedovertime.Indeed,thisisoneofthemostsignificantdevelopmentstohavetakenplaceinthepastfewdecadesintheBritishJewishcommunity:therewere12,500JewishchildreninJewishschoolsin1975;todaytherearealmost30,000.However,alargepartofthisgrowthhascomefromtheHaredisector;asthatpopulationhasgrown,ithascreatedanincreasingnumberofschoolplacesforitschildren.Nonetheless,animportantaspectofthegrowthcanalsobetracedelsewhere:theproportionofJewishchildrenfromnon-OrthodoxhomesattendingJewishschoolshasalsoincreasedoverthatperiod.However,weseeclearsignsinthedatathat,amongthislattergroup,therateofincreaseisslowingdownconsiderably.ThisraisesatleasttwocriticalquestionsforthoseinvolvedinthedevelopmentofJewishschoolsintheUK:(i)isthereamaximumtake-upofJewishschoolplacesamongthenon-Orthodoxcommunity,and,ifso,whatisthatlikelytobe?;and(ii)howwillthisaffectplanningforJewishschoolprovisionandfillingofexistingschoolplacesinthefuture?

Will charity begin at home, or end at home?ThequestionoftheextenttowhichJewsfeeltheyhaveaparticularresponsibilitytogivetootherJews,versusamoreuniversalresponsibility

togivetohumanityingeneral,isonethathaslongbeendiscussedinJewishcircles.Thesurveyfindsthatrespondentsareslightlymorelikelytodonatetonon-JewishcharitiesthantoJewishones,althoughsignificantdenominationalvariationsareapparent.Isthisbalanceappropriate?ShouldJewsbeencouragedtogivemoretoJewishcharities,orshouldtheybeencouragedtoinvestmoreinnon-Jewishcharities?Further,thefindingthatoverathirdofrespondentsgiveslessthan£100peryearintotaltoanycharity–Jewishornon-Jewish–alsoraisesquestions.Whilstmanyofthesewillbeinlowerincomebrackets,shouldmorebedonetoencouragehigherlevelsofgiving?Ontheotherhand,thesurveyalsoshowsthatalmostathirdgivesatleast£500peryear.SoischaritablegivingamongJewsashighascanbereasonablyexpected?Whilstthedatahelptoraiseallofthesequestions,theycanalsobeusedtoconsidermorepracticalones:e.g.howshouldJewishcharitiessharpenandrefinetheirfundraisingstrategiestomaximisetheireffectiveness?

Jewish care homes, or care homes for Jews?CaringfortheelderlyisakeypartofJewishcommunalprovision,andwithpeoplelivinglonger,theJewishelderlycaresectorislikelytobecomeevenmoreimportantintheyearsahead.Determiningwhattypeofcaretoprovide,andinwhatmeasures,willbecritical.ThisreportshowsthatwhilstthevastmajorityofOrthodoxandTraditionalJewsaged65andabovewouldprefertobecaredforinakoshercarehome,almosttwooutofthreerespondentsexpressednoparticularpreferenceforcarehomeswithkosherfacilities.Nonetheless,withthenotableexceptionofasizeableproportionoftheSecular/Cultural,mostJewswouldpreferacarehomewithaJewishethos.SowhattypesofcareareJewsinBritainlookingfor,andhowcantheirneedsbestbemet?

Will Jewish community organisations make active use of the data treasure trove now available?ThisreporthastakenthelargestdatasetevergatheredfromanationwidesurveyofJews,andhighlightedasmallnumberofpreliminary


findings.Thesefindingsareimportantinandofthemselves,andshouldbeusedinmultipleframeworkstoinformcommunityplanning.However,theybarelyscratchthesurfaceofwhatisnowavailable.WiththecombinedvalueoftheNJCSand2011UKCensusdatasets,theBritishJewishcommunityisnowmorerichindatathanithaseverbeen.Wehaveaccesstoanextraordinaryamountofinformationthatcanbeusedinmultiplewaystoshedlightonmajorpolicyissues,aswellastofocusonthevery

specificconcernsoflocalcharities,synagoguesandschools.ThesedatawerenotgatheredprimarilytoproducereportsofgeneralinterestaboutJewishlifeintheUK(althoughtheycanbeusedforthatpurpose);rather,theyweregatheredtosupportorganisationalplanningacrosstheJewishcommunity.Ifyouareinterestedinlearningmoreabouthowtheymightbenefityourorganisation,orifyouwouldliketofindouthowtocommissionabespokereport,pleasecontactJPR.


Appendix 1: Methodology

Sampling strategyTheNationalJewishCommunitySurveyisapopulationandhouseholdsurveyandwasdevelopedbyJPR.ThefieldworkwascarriedoutonlinebyIpsosMORIonbehalfofJPR.Dataanalysisandreport-writingwerecarriedoutexclusivelybyJPR.

Questionnaire and sample design ThesurveyquestionnairewasdevelopedbyconsideringpastJPRsurveys,questionnairesusedinnationalsurveys(suchastheGPPatientSurvey)andtheviewsofkeyprovidersofcareandeducationalservicesintheBritishJewishcommunityinaseriesofconsultations,andthroughtheProjectSteeringGroup(seeAppendix3).

Thesamplewasself-selecting,andrespondentswererequiredtoself-identifyasJewish,andconfirmthattheylivedintheUnitedKingdomandwereaged16orover.Theywerecontactedprimarilythroughalargenumberof‘seed’organisations,representingabroadcross-sectionoftheJewishcommunity.Theemaillistsofmorethan20seedorganisationswereused,includingmediabodies,synagogalorganisations,Jewishonlinenetworks,andkeycommunityrepresentativeorganisations,amongothers.

Theseedorganisationswereusedtoinitiatea‘snowballing’processwhich,ineffect,createdanon-probabilityconveniencesample.ItwasnotpossibletousearandomprobabilitysamplingapproachforthisstudybecauseasuitablesamplingframefortheJewishpopulationisnotavailableintheUnitedKingdom.33Thefieldworkwasconductedbetween6thJune2013and15thJuly2013.

Upto55,000emailsweresentoutthroughthe‘seed’organisations.Theactualnumberofuniquehouseholdscontactedcannotbedeterminedduetothelikelyoverlapbetweendifferentorganisations’emaillists.Inaddition,ourexperienceshows

33 Forexample,theUKdoesnothaveaPopulationRegister.Analternativemethod,RandomDigitDialling,istoocostlytojustifyitsuseandittoohaspotentialdrawbacks.

thatthereportedsizeofadministrativedatabasestendstobeover-estimated.Therefore,wecannotestimatethesurveyresponserate.Intotal4,072individualresponseswereobtained.Theaveragelengthoftimespentcompletingthequestionnairewas31minutes.

Measures of quality controlAkeyissuewithanonlinehouseholdsurveyistoensurehouseholdsarenotdoublecounted.Toavoidthisandotherabusesthatmightaffectthesurvey’sintegrity,severalmeasureswereimplemented.34Theseincludedcarefullymonitoringresponsesforunusualtrendsduringthefieldworkphase,andassessingthecompleteddatasetforthepresenceofextremeorunrealisticvalues(i.e.outlierdiagnostics)andforthepresenceofunlikelycombinationsofvaluesacrossvariables(i.e.logicalchecks).Further,bycapturingpostcodeandhouseholdstructureinformationaswellasotherdetailsabouthouseholdmembers,itwaspossibletoidentifyquestionnairesfromduplicatehouseholds.Finally,respondentswerespecificallyinstructednottoforwardthesurveyontootherswithintheirownhousehold,and,ifrelevant,wereaskedtospecifythesourceofanyreferrals.Asaresult,duplicatehouseholdresponseswerekepttoaminimumandultimately,removedfromthesample.Intotal,336caseswereremovedfromtheoriginal4,072completedquestionnaires.Therefore,thefinaldatasetcontains3,736responses,uniqueattheindividualandhouseholdlevels.Thisrepresentsatotalof9,895peopleofallageslivinginthehouseholdsofrespondents.

How representative is the sample of the Jewish population?Itshouldbenotedthat,with3,736individualresponses,thisisalargesample.Itconstitutesabout3.4%ofthetotalnumberofJewishhouseholdsintheUnitedKingdom.ItiscertainlysufficientlylargeforustobeconfidentthatthepercentagesquotedhereareclosetothetruepercentagesintheJewishpopulation.However,

34 Anindicationofthetypesofmeasurestakencanbeseenin:Graham,D.(2011).“Surveyingminoritygroupsonline.Anassessmentofthemethodologicalapproachusedinthe2010IsraelSurvey.”London:InstituteforJewishPolicyResearch.


duetothenatureofthesamplingprocess,wecannotconductaformaltestofrepresentativeness.GiventhatthesurveyinitiallyutilisedseedlistsheldbyJewishcommunityorganisationsforsnowballing,itisreasonabletoassumethatthecommunallyuninvolvedmaybeunder-represented,thoughthesurveydoesincludesignificantnumbersofsuchrespondents.

However,representativenesscanalsobeassessedbycomparingthedistributionsofselectedsocio-demographicvariablesinthissamplewithcensusdataandcommunitystatistics.Thesesourceswereusedforcalibratingthesample.

• Geographically,NJCSmatchesthe2011Censusdatareasonablywell:about70%oftheNJCSrespondentsliveinGreaterLondonortheEastandSouthEastofEngland(76%inCensus2011).

• Genderisalsorepresentative:malesconstitute46%oftheNJCSsample.Accordingtothe2011Census,theexpectedproportionofmalesatages16andoveris48%.

• Intermsofage,NJCSunder-representsyoungadults(personsaged16-39)andtheoldestagegroup(personsaged80andover),whileitover-representsmatureadults(personsaged55-74).

• Intermsofsynagoguemembership(dataforwhichareheldbytheBoardofDeputiesofBritishJews),therewasanunder-representationofJewswhoarenotaffiliatedtoasynagogueandofstrictlyOrthodoxJews(Haredim).Bycontrast,progressivemovementsareoverrepresentedbyNJCS.

ThesemetricsallowedthesurveyteamtoweightthedatasettoensureitmorecloselyresembledtheBritishJewishpopulation.Thus,combinedage-sex-synagogueaffiliationweightswerecreatedandappliedtothesample.Adjustmentforage,sexandsynagogueaffiliationdidnotdramaticallychangetheresultsofthesurvey.Forallselectedindicators,thedifferencebetweenunadjustedandadjustedpercentagesis,atmost,9percentagepoints.Nevertheless,allpercentagespresentedinthisreportarebasedonweighteddata,thoughallNsareunweightedsamplecounts.

Ipsos MORI panelAdditionally,JPRrana‘controlsurvey’usingIpsosMORI’sownpanel.Thiswaslargely

experimental,butofferedthepotentialtoselectasampleindependentofJewishseedorganisations.Thispanelconsistedof552personsinuniquehouseholdswhohadself-identifiedasJewsinprevioussurveysconductedbyIpsosMORI.Thissamplewassurveyedbetween18July2013and2August2013,usingthesameNJCSsurveyinstrument.Theresponserateforthisadditionalsurveywas48%,comparingwelltonationalsurveys.PanellistswerealsoaskedtoreferthesurveytootherJews,and63additionalindividualswererecruitedinthisway.Thefinaldatasetforanalysis,afterremovalofoutliers,logicalchecksandsoon,consistedof305uniquehouseholds.

Thoughsmall,andthereforeunsuitableforformingthemainsampleforthissurvey,thispanelsampleshould,intheory,bemorerepresentativeoftheJewishpopulationthansurveysdistributedthroughcommunalseedorganisationssuchasNJCS.ComparingthepaneldatawiththemainNJCSdatasetrevealedthattheprevalenceofkeytypesofJewishreligiousbehaviour(frequentsynagogueattendance,keepingkosher,celebratingShabbatandmarkingmajorJewishholidays)was,onaverage,8.6percentagepointslowerinthepanelthaninthemainNJCSdataset(SeeAppendix2).

Methodological conclusionAllsurveyshavetheirshortcomings.Evensurveysthatarebasedonprobabilitysamplingaretypicallyaffectedbyhighlevelsofnon-response.Surveysofpopulationslackingsamplingframes,suchasthisone,areparticularlychallenging,asisestablishingtheirrepresentativeness.Nevertheless,becausewehaveextremelyhighqualitybaselinestatisticsavailableinBritain,itispossibletobothaccuratelyweightthedataandmakereasonableassumptionsaboutwheretheymaydepartfromthe‘true’picture.

Ingeneral,theNJCSsamplereflectsthediversecharacterofJewishhouseholdsinBritainacrossawidevarietyofsocial,religiousanddemographicvariables.Wherethesampledoesdepartfrombaselinecharacteristics,weighting(forage,sexandsynagoguemembership)wasapplied.Finally,bymeansofanindependentparallelsurvey,wecanquantifytheextenttowhichthesamplelikelyunderrepresentstheleastJewishlyengagedsectionsofthepopulation.Therefore,wejudgethepicturewhicharisesfromtheNJCSsample


asrepresentativeofthosewhoeitherdo,orarequitelikelyto,useJewishcommunalfacilities(e.g.synagogues,careandeducationalservices).This

isentirelyappropriatetothemainpurposeofthisstudy,whichistosupporttheplanningneedsoforganisationsprovidingsuchservices.


Appendix 2: NJCS Main file compared with the Panel file

ThefollowingtableprovidesacomparisonoftenkeyNJCSvariablesfromtheMainsurveyandthePanelsurvey(discussedinAppendix1).BecausethePaneldataweregeneratedindependentlyofJewishcommunitydatabases,weareconfidentthatthefrequenciestheyrevealarelikelytobeclosertothe‘true’levelsofprevalenceofJewishbelongingandbehaviourinthepopulationthantheMaindataset.Therefore,theoretically,itprovidesaquantifiableindicationoftheextenttowhichtheMainsurveyislikelytounderrepresentthelessJewishlyengagedpopulation.

Itcanbeseenthat,comparedwiththePaneldata,theMainsurveyoverstatesJewishreligiousengagementbybetween2and8percentagepointsoneightoftheelevenitems.Oftheremainingthree,whichrelatetolightingcandlesonShabbat,attendingaFridaynightmealmostweeks,andattendingaPassoverseder,theMainsurveyoverstatesJewishreligiousengagementbybetween16and18percentagepoints.

Variable Main survey(N=3,736)

Panel survey*(N=305)

Percentage point

difference

% who do not switch on lights on the Sabbath 17.9% 13.0%(9.2 to 16.8)

4.9

% who separate milk and meat utensils at home 51.5% 47.2%(40.9 to 53.6)

4.3

% who attend a Friday night meal most weeks 56.7% 38.8%(33.3 to 44.3)

17.9

% who light candles at home every Friday 49.0% 33.0%(29.0 to 39.0)

16.0

% who never travel on Shabbat 20.0% 12.0%(8.0 to 16.0)

8.0

% who buy meat for home from kosher butcher only 48.0% 41.0% (35.0 to 47.0)

7.0

% who attend Seder meal at Passover every year or most years 81.0% 63.0% (57.0 to 68.0)

18.0

% who had a Bar/Bat Mitzvah 59.9% 57.2%(52.0 to 63.0)

2.7

% who were regularly involved in a Jewish youth movement 56.5% 49.9%(44.0 to 56.0)

6.6

% who went to a Jewish school 30.1% 27.8%(22.8 to 32.9)

2.3

% who would prefer to be cared for in a care home with kosher facilities

42.6% 35.5%(30.1 to 40.9)

7.1

Table 15. Comparison between the Main NJCS survey and the parallel Panel survey on a number of key metrics

* 95% confidence intervals in parentheses


Appendix 3: Project Steering Group and consultations

Steering GroupEachoftheJewishorganisationsthatchosetocontributefinanciallytowardstheNationalJewishCommunitySurveywasinvitedtosendoneortworepresentativestositontheprojectSteeringGroup.TheirrolewastoserveasaliaisonbetweentheJPRresearchteamandthestakeholdersintheproject,andtobeasoundingboardduringtheprocessofbuildingthesurveyquestionnaire.Themembersofthegroupwere:JonBenjamin(formerChiefExecutive,BoardofDeputiesofBritishJews);AmyBraier(Director,PearsFoundation);DebbieFox(Trustee,JewishCare);CydonieGarfield(HeadofStrategyandQualityAssurance,JewishCare);KarenGoodman(formerHeadofChildren’sServices,Norwood);DavidHarris(DirectorofDevelopment,Norwood);DrMichaelHymans(Trustee,Norwood);DrDavidJanner-Klausner(formerProgrammeandPlanningDirector,UJIA);RabbiDaniellaKolodny(DirectorofRabbinicDevelopment,MasortiJudaism);ClaudiaMendoza(HeadofPolicyandResearch,JewishLeadershipCouncil);DrHelenaMiller(DirectorofResearchandEvaluation,UJIA);HowardMiller(ChiefAdministrator,SpanishandPortugueseJews’Congregation);RosalindPrestonOBE(formerChairman,NightingaleHouse);BenRich

(formerChiefExecutive,MovementforReformJudaism);LeonSmith(formerChiefExecutive,NightingaleHammerson).

The consultation processInadditiontotheworkofthefundingpartnersthroughtheSteeringGroup,JPRalsoinvitedawidergroupoforganisationstoaseriesofconsultationstohelpinformthecontentofthequestionnaire.WewereeagertoincludeasdiverseagroupaspossibleintheprocessofbuildingthisstudytoensurethatitwouldmeettheneedsandinterestsoftheentireJewishcommunity,andweusedtheconsultationsasakeymeansofachievingthat.Theorganisationsthatwereabletosendrepresentativestotheseconsultationswere:theAllPartyParliamentaryGroupAgainstAntisemitism;theBoardofDeputiesofBritishJews;theCommunitySecurityTrust;theDepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment;JewishCare;theJewishLeadershipCouncil;theJewishVolunteeringNetwork;JW3;MasortiJudaism;theMinistryofJustice;theMovementforReformJudaism;NightingaleHammerson;Norwood;theOfficeoftheChiefRabbi;PearsFoundation;Prism;theSamuelSebbaCharitableTrust;theUnitedJewishIsraelAppeal;andtheUnitedSynagogue.

NATIONAL JEWISHCOMMUNITY SURVEY

Jews in the United Kingdom in 2013:Preliminary findings from the National Jewish Community SurveyDavid Graham, Laura Staetsky and Jonathan Boyd

Institute for Jewish Policy Research

© Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any means, now known or hereinafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing of the publisher.

jpr / report

Published by Institute for Jewish Policy Research

ORT House, 126 Albert Street, London NW1 7NEe-mail [email protected] website www.jpr.org.uk

Registered Charity No. 252626

Institute for Jewish Policy Research January 2014

jpr / report

£

david graham, l. d. staetsky and jonathan boyd · national jewish community survey jews in the...

Documents