Most Jews are now considered ‘white.’* But more and more Jewish families are multicolored. There are many avenues to a multiracial family identity. Conversion, intermarriage, adoption, and plain old, born that way. Here is a terrific and affirming article about the Be’chol Lashon summer camp for multiracial families that started this year in northern California. Be’chol Lashon is a program that supports multiracial Jewish families and offers education to the Jewish community about the multiracial Jews among us. Their associate director is Rabbi Capers Funnye, First Lady Michelle Obama’s cousin.
You’ll note that the article says that the 2000 National Jewish Population Study found that 5.4% of America’s Jews are non-white. But a 2004 study by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, Be’chol Lashon’s parent organization, puts the figure at about 10 percent. That’s national. In the San Francisco bay area two studies have found that the Jewish community has more like 14% non-white Jews.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/10/13/1008467/jews-of-color-choose-come-together-to-exlore-identity
*For Jews who grew up before Jews “turned white” in the 1970s, there is still a struggle to be seen for who they were growing up – a racial minority. Jewish demographer, Dr. Bruce Phillips, states that Jews “turned white” in America after years of being a brown race that, in the 1930s, was ranked as worse than Poles and Irish, but better than Hispanics and Blacks. You’ll note that a lot of people were being considered “not white.”
Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demographics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Outreach to the Birthright Alums
A few days ago, Aug. 26, 2009, the Forward ran this article:
Largest Outreach Effort for Alums Of Birthright Raises Concerns
(http://www.forward.com/articles/112920/)
What’s the “concern?” The charge is that the largest, most well-funded organizer of follow-up programs for Birthright alumni, the Jewish Enrichment Center, been given a virtual monopoly on reaching out to the tens of thousands of Birthright alumni who return to the New York Tri-State area and that they are Orthodox.
As I began reading I found nothing to be so upset about. The program is non-denominational, has a terrific sounding offering, and environment for young people to hang out, learn and get to know other young Jews. They have Hebrew classes, challah baking, Friday night dinners and a training program for those who didn’t have a bar or bat mitzvah. As a mom of a Birthright alum it all sounded good to me. In fact I’ve been hoping and asking for some meaningful followup for my San Francisco bay area alum daughter.
I don’t care that the Orthodox rabbi isn’t into labels; personally I have frum friends and I get tired of hearing them disparaged. The accusation that the program is “slanted towards religious observance” sounded like it is more of a problem for my generation than my daughter’s. I have no objection to traditional Torah study as long as it’s accepting and embracing. I am onboard for kosher snacks, which I’m assuming they serve.
But then the program moved from religion, where they appear to be low key and open, to politics, where there is a clear conservative agenda. OK, they lost me. And truthfully, they’d lose my daughter.
What makes me sad is that it always seems like the money for extensive programming and an expensive building/meeting place only goes to orthodox endeavors. The liberal areas of the community can’t see their way clear to spend this money. So while I agree with the concerns expressed by Rabbi Yoffie of the Union for Reform Judaism (see the article), what I see is that no one is willing to fund a program of Reform (or Reconstructionist or Renewal or Conservative) Jewish outreach on this scale.
We in Outreach to Interfaith readily acknowledge the powerful message and consistent openness of Chabad. The frequent statement is, “we need to become a liberal version of Chabad.” What does that mean? First of all it means feeling confident of who we are, knowing our own boundaries. From a secure core it is a lot easier to open your arms to others. I hope that a clear and consistent mission statement will help funders see their way through to funding a liberal program of outreach. To you my fellow professionals, I believe the better we coordinate with each other and support each other (as the Chabad couples do) the stronger we will become.
But let me issue a cautionary note to the Jewish Enrichment Center, please ask yourself:
Will a conservative speaker (Grace-Marie Turner) who is opposed to public funding for abortions and is anti-President Obama catch the interest of this group of young Jews? If you think she will, you don’t know your audience. I suggest you check out the YouTube video, Sarah Silverman and the Great Schlep – that’s where the young Jews are.
Largest Outreach Effort for Alums Of Birthright Raises Concerns
(http://www.forward.com/articles/112920/)
What’s the “concern?” The charge is that the largest, most well-funded organizer of follow-up programs for Birthright alumni, the Jewish Enrichment Center, been given a virtual monopoly on reaching out to the tens of thousands of Birthright alumni who return to the New York Tri-State area and that they are Orthodox.
As I began reading I found nothing to be so upset about. The program is non-denominational, has a terrific sounding offering, and environment for young people to hang out, learn and get to know other young Jews. They have Hebrew classes, challah baking, Friday night dinners and a training program for those who didn’t have a bar or bat mitzvah. As a mom of a Birthright alum it all sounded good to me. In fact I’ve been hoping and asking for some meaningful followup for my San Francisco bay area alum daughter.
I don’t care that the Orthodox rabbi isn’t into labels; personally I have frum friends and I get tired of hearing them disparaged. The accusation that the program is “slanted towards religious observance” sounded like it is more of a problem for my generation than my daughter’s. I have no objection to traditional Torah study as long as it’s accepting and embracing. I am onboard for kosher snacks, which I’m assuming they serve.
But then the program moved from religion, where they appear to be low key and open, to politics, where there is a clear conservative agenda. OK, they lost me. And truthfully, they’d lose my daughter.
What makes me sad is that it always seems like the money for extensive programming and an expensive building/meeting place only goes to orthodox endeavors. The liberal areas of the community can’t see their way clear to spend this money. So while I agree with the concerns expressed by Rabbi Yoffie of the Union for Reform Judaism (see the article), what I see is that no one is willing to fund a program of Reform (or Reconstructionist or Renewal or Conservative) Jewish outreach on this scale.
We in Outreach to Interfaith readily acknowledge the powerful message and consistent openness of Chabad. The frequent statement is, “we need to become a liberal version of Chabad.” What does that mean? First of all it means feeling confident of who we are, knowing our own boundaries. From a secure core it is a lot easier to open your arms to others. I hope that a clear and consistent mission statement will help funders see their way through to funding a liberal program of outreach. To you my fellow professionals, I believe the better we coordinate with each other and support each other (as the Chabad couples do) the stronger we will become.
But let me issue a cautionary note to the Jewish Enrichment Center, please ask yourself:
Will a conservative speaker (Grace-Marie Turner) who is opposed to public funding for abortions and is anti-President Obama catch the interest of this group of young Jews? If you think she will, you don’t know your audience. I suggest you check out the YouTube video, Sarah Silverman and the Great Schlep – that’s where the young Jews are.
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Four Types of Interfaith Families
Jewish Demographics Studies
with Dr. Bruce Phillips
Over the course of years of studies, Dr. Phillips has come to identify interfaith families in four categories. They are:
Judaic - the only religion practiced in the household is Judaism.
Secular - no religion is practiced in the home. Both the Jew and the non-Jew (typically Christian) is not interested in religion.
Dual - two religions are observed, typically Judaism and Christianity. Family celebrates the holidays of both.
Christian - the only religion practiced in the home is Christianity.
There is an interesting error that most Jewish outreach stumbles on. The majority of outreach is directed at the Secular Family. This family has little to no interest in any religion. So efforts to draw them in are rarely successful. These individuals have no need or desire to have religion be a part of their lives. (I am using religion in its broadest terms here and including community.)
Additionally, Jewish outreach often shies away the Dual Religion family since Jews are uncomfortable with Christianity and do not support the idea of doing “both” religions in the home. Yet, these families are the most interested. Both partners are clinging to their religion and having trouble understanding how to sustain religion for each of them. They are the most receptive to learning about Judaism.
I do not want to down play how difficult programs for Dual Religion couples can be. They require a very centered and accessible facilitator who is comfortable with both hearing language that sounds like its neutralizing Judaism AND can express boundaries that are rational, not reactionary.
with Dr. Bruce Phillips
Over the course of years of studies, Dr. Phillips has come to identify interfaith families in four categories. They are:
Judaic - the only religion practiced in the household is Judaism.
Secular - no religion is practiced in the home. Both the Jew and the non-Jew (typically Christian) is not interested in religion.
Dual - two religions are observed, typically Judaism and Christianity. Family celebrates the holidays of both.
Christian - the only religion practiced in the home is Christianity.
There is an interesting error that most Jewish outreach stumbles on. The majority of outreach is directed at the Secular Family. This family has little to no interest in any religion. So efforts to draw them in are rarely successful. These individuals have no need or desire to have religion be a part of their lives. (I am using religion in its broadest terms here and including community.)
Additionally, Jewish outreach often shies away the Dual Religion family since Jews are uncomfortable with Christianity and do not support the idea of doing “both” religions in the home. Yet, these families are the most interested. Both partners are clinging to their religion and having trouble understanding how to sustain religion for each of them. They are the most receptive to learning about Judaism.
I do not want to down play how difficult programs for Dual Religion couples can be. They require a very centered and accessible facilitator who is comfortable with both hearing language that sounds like its neutralizing Judaism AND can express boundaries that are rational, not reactionary.
Studies: Who is a Jew?
Jewish Demographic Studies
with Dr Bruce Phillips
One thing that became evident early in our discussion with Dr. Phillips is the high level of political influence there is in Jewish demographic studies and how this impacts the resulting report. A question that has repercussions for every study is how the study’s authors define “who is a Jew?”
If you define a Jew as an individual who is the child of a Jewish parent, raised Jewish, still identifying as Jewish, you fail to learn about assimilation. Studies that question those individuals who identify as half-Jewish, of Jewish heritage, Christian Jews, etc., allow us to understand who is leaving Judaism and at what rate.
We learned that when this data is perceived of as too depressing or negative it has been entirely dropped by the funders of studies.
While this information may indeed be disturbing we need to be aware of it.
with Dr Bruce Phillips
One thing that became evident early in our discussion with Dr. Phillips is the high level of political influence there is in Jewish demographic studies and how this impacts the resulting report. A question that has repercussions for every study is how the study’s authors define “who is a Jew?”
If you define a Jew as an individual who is the child of a Jewish parent, raised Jewish, still identifying as Jewish, you fail to learn about assimilation. Studies that question those individuals who identify as half-Jewish, of Jewish heritage, Christian Jews, etc., allow us to understand who is leaving Judaism and at what rate.
We learned that when this data is perceived of as too depressing or negative it has been entirely dropped by the funders of studies.
While this information may indeed be disturbing we need to be aware of it.
Monday, October 13, 2008
After the Think Tank
The three of us from the Alliance were amazed and thrilled - we expected things to go well but we just didn't know the Think Tank would go this well! A million thanks to each of you who participated and to our wonderful funders, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation and the Walter and Elise Haas Sr. Fund. We are in the midst of writing up the results of our conversations.
Our guest speaker was Dr. Bruce Phillips, a well respected sociologist and demographer. We spent the first day with Dr. Phillips reviewing the current data on interfaith marriage. Fortunately for us, Dr. Phillips was recently asked to review all the current data for a book.
We look forward to sharing our experiences with others in this field.
Our guest speaker was Dr. Bruce Phillips, a well respected sociologist and demographer. We spent the first day with Dr. Phillips reviewing the current data on interfaith marriage. Fortunately for us, Dr. Phillips was recently asked to review all the current data for a book.
We look forward to sharing our experiences with others in this field.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Using Technology for What?
The cover story on the Technology & Business page for the SF Chronicle this week was “Who is Doing What with Technology?” It is about a new survey titled, The State of Consumers and Technology: Benchmark 2008.
Here is the SF Chron story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/28/BU9J11UH43.DTL&hw=The+State+of+Consumers+Technology+Benchmark+2008&sn=001&sc=1000
You can find the survey at:
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,44126,00.html
It’s worth taking a look at the trends for the four age groups identified. As our population ages we see the techno-savvy Gen X (also called Millennials) and Gen Y becoming the population to which our programs are directed. Understanding their use of the internet to access Jewish life is important. If you listen to some speakers they will imply that these groups are using online social networking for all their social connections. I believe it is the more astute individual that says these groups use the internet to arrange for face-to-face social experiences. The need for human contact has not disappeared, it’s just that technology is being use to create it in new ways.
If you are so fortunate to have a small in home social science laboratory – also known as a teenage child – you will note that they reflect some of the messages we are being given by the marketing professionals. I am lucky enough to have both a teenage son (age 17) and a just-out-of college daughter (age 22). My two use technology differently from each other!
My son told me that email is just for use during school months to communicate with teachers. He uses his cell phone for calls and texting.
My daughter does the above but she also uses emailing and the internet for job searching and uses Skyping for work and play.
Watch your kids, they are creating the future.
Here is the SF Chron story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/28/BU9J11UH43.DTL&hw=The+State+of+Consumers+Technology+Benchmark+2008&sn=001&sc=1000
You can find the survey at:
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,44126,00.html
It’s worth taking a look at the trends for the four age groups identified. As our population ages we see the techno-savvy Gen X (also called Millennials) and Gen Y becoming the population to which our programs are directed. Understanding their use of the internet to access Jewish life is important. If you listen to some speakers they will imply that these groups are using online social networking for all their social connections. I believe it is the more astute individual that says these groups use the internet to arrange for face-to-face social experiences. The need for human contact has not disappeared, it’s just that technology is being use to create it in new ways.
If you are so fortunate to have a small in home social science laboratory – also known as a teenage child – you will note that they reflect some of the messages we are being given by the marketing professionals. I am lucky enough to have both a teenage son (age 17) and a just-out-of college daughter (age 22). My two use technology differently from each other!
My son told me that email is just for use during school months to communicate with teachers. He uses his cell phone for calls and texting.
My daughter does the above but she also uses emailing and the internet for job searching and uses Skyping for work and play.
Watch your kids, they are creating the future.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Cell Phone Challenge to Survey Research (PEW)
A few years ago I attended a meeting on the topic of Jewish research. In this room of Jewish lay people the lament was that phone interviews were no longer any good unless they utilized cell phone numbers (which were not available at the time). The concern was that any study done using land lines would not capture younger people who “all use only cell phones.” Not atypical for a group of professional Jews, this group felt certain that their opinions represented the truth and were more authentic than the opinion of the one professional researcher in the room.
I was concerned that we were missing something so I contacted a demographer later that week and asked whether there were any studies done on the topic of cell phone vs landlines for surveys. Not surprisingly the answer was yes, in fact one of the Granddaddies of all research institutions, PEW did a study in 2006. Their findings are significant to all of us so let me summarize.
Of the general public only 7 to 9% are cell phone only users.
The study says they are “significantly different in many ways from those reachable on a landline.” They are:
- younger
- less affluent
- less likely to be married
- less likely to own a home
- more liberal on many political questions
However, the study also found “the absence of this group from traditional telephone surveys has only a minimal impact on the results... changes the overall results of the poll by no more than one percentage point...”
Cell phone interviews present their own challenges. The study states that cell phone surveys are “more difficult and expensive to conduct than landline surveys” for the following reasons:
- most cell phone users pay for incoming calls so they must be offered an incentive for taking the call (in this study, $10). This incurs the cost of the incentive, ten dollars, and the cost of follow up mailings.
- federal law prohibits the use of automated dialing for cell phones thus each number must be manually dialed
- fewer cell phone users were willing to cooperate, that is, participate in the study (50% of landline users cooperated, 28% of cell users cooperated)
- more people reached on the cell phone were under the age of 18 and thus ineligible
- interviewer must first assert the cell user is in a safe place to take the interview
The study found that the total cost of interviewing the cell phone sample was 2.4 times the cost of the landline sample.
Cell Phone user demographics
Gender: More men were reached via cell phone (55%)
Age: Younger people were reached
Race: more minorities were reached (13% African American and 11% Hispanic)
Education: Interestingly, in this study both samples were better educated than the rest of the U.S. population
Home owners: Cell users were less likely to own their home
Children: Cell users were more likely to have children under the age of 18
Marital status: Almost the same rate for both samples, with landlines users 57% married and cell users 52% married
Two interesting and relevant issues for Jewish population studies:
The cell phone only population includes a higher proportion of minorities, especially Hispanics.
Landline samples includes a higher proportion of college graduates.
Jews are predominantly white and better educated, like the landline users.
These are all important factors to raise if you are involved in a survey or reviewing one.
I was concerned that we were missing something so I contacted a demographer later that week and asked whether there were any studies done on the topic of cell phone vs landlines for surveys. Not surprisingly the answer was yes, in fact one of the Granddaddies of all research institutions, PEW did a study in 2006. Their findings are significant to all of us so let me summarize.
Of the general public only 7 to 9% are cell phone only users.
The study says they are “significantly different in many ways from those reachable on a landline.” They are:
- younger
- less affluent
- less likely to be married
- less likely to own a home
- more liberal on many political questions
However, the study also found “the absence of this group from traditional telephone surveys has only a minimal impact on the results... changes the overall results of the poll by no more than one percentage point...”
Cell phone interviews present their own challenges. The study states that cell phone surveys are “more difficult and expensive to conduct than landline surveys” for the following reasons:
- most cell phone users pay for incoming calls so they must be offered an incentive for taking the call (in this study, $10). This incurs the cost of the incentive, ten dollars, and the cost of follow up mailings.
- federal law prohibits the use of automated dialing for cell phones thus each number must be manually dialed
- fewer cell phone users were willing to cooperate, that is, participate in the study (50% of landline users cooperated, 28% of cell users cooperated)
- more people reached on the cell phone were under the age of 18 and thus ineligible
- interviewer must first assert the cell user is in a safe place to take the interview
The study found that the total cost of interviewing the cell phone sample was 2.4 times the cost of the landline sample.
Cell Phone user demographics
Gender: More men were reached via cell phone (55%)
Age: Younger people were reached
Race: more minorities were reached (13% African American and 11% Hispanic)
Education: Interestingly, in this study both samples were better educated than the rest of the U.S. population
Home owners: Cell users were less likely to own their home
Children: Cell users were more likely to have children under the age of 18
Marital status: Almost the same rate for both samples, with landlines users 57% married and cell users 52% married
Two interesting and relevant issues for Jewish population studies:
The cell phone only population includes a higher proportion of minorities, especially Hispanics.
Landline samples includes a higher proportion of college graduates.
Jews are predominantly white and better educated, like the landline users.
These are all important factors to raise if you are involved in a survey or reviewing one.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
It's Not Just Who Stands Under the Chuppah
The Fern Chertok and Leonard Saxe study is out and it is a superb result - informative and useful.
I want to look beyond the headlines. This is not a rosy affirmation that interfaith couples turn out to be just like Jewish - Jewish couples.
What is the study saying?
Yes, interfaith couples, when you control for Jewish education level, look very much like JJ couples in the Reform movement.
But look closely, the JJ couples don’t look so good. This is a bit like saying people with pneumonia don’t look any worse than people with the plague.
Looking at the levels of observance and practice studied we see low numbers for both groups.
Very emotionally attached to Israel
JJ couples 17% IF couples 16%
Any Jewish organizational ties
JJ couples 54% IF couples 57%
Usually light Shabbat candles
JJ couples 13% IF couples 12%
Very important to be Jewish
JJ couples 37% IF couples 29%
In essence, this is a startling revelation of the low level of the Reform Jews’ engagement with Jewish life.
But don’t throw in the towel, there is also good news.
Chertok/Saxe identify three critical elements to Jewish engagement.
1) Jewish Education
Remember that all of the above statistics are based on “controlling for education.” That is, a poorly educated Jew, no matter who they marry, doesn’t do much Jewishly. A well educated Jew, no matter who they marry, does – or is significantly more likely to.
As one highly educated Jew in my community put it, “I painted a very orthodox picture of life with me to my (now) husband when we were talking about marriage.” Indeed, she and her husband and children are synagogue affiliated, active in Federation, and the children attend day school.
2) Home Ritual
The study finds that those who have a bank of Jewish memories are more likely to repeat the behaviors those memories are based on. This makes abundant common sense. If you can’t play the piano, do you really identify as a pianist? Do you believe yourself capable of things you have no personal, repeated experience of doing? In order to BE Jewish, one must know how to DO Jewish.
For those who remember the scent of challah baking, the excitement of staying up for Shavuot, making decorations for the sukkah, there is the desire and knowledge to repeat them in adulthood. These practices from childhood are no less powerful than the memories associated with Christmas. We must stock up the Jewish bank with Jewish capital.
Side note: You may be aware that scientists have found that the sense of smell is our longest carrier of memories. In other words, you can smell something from your past and it will arouse a memory better and longer than visual or auditory stimuli. Interestingly this carrying over to smell’s companion sense - taste. Immigrants retain the cuisine of their home culture even after assimilating in other ways to the dominate culture. I frequently encourage my interfaith couples to integrate sensory Jewish experiences into their lives.
3) Social Networks
This study states that having Jewish friends increased the likelihood that an individual will engage in Jewish life and practice.
Studies in all the social sciences report the power of peer influence. A recent study on Early Childhood Education looked at what causes parents to put their children in Jewish preschools. They found the number one factor was the actions of their friends. They titled this: Peer Influence.
What causes kids to join gangs? What supports alcoholics in remaining “dry”? The support and influence of a peer group.
Chertok/Saxe state it brilliantly:
Having Jewish friends growing up and especially in high school may help make Jewish identity and home ritual normative. Jewish summer camps, youth movements, and campus organizations provide environments in which to enact Jewish values and practice Jewish behaviors with peers. Without opportunities for social comparison with a group of Jewish friends, teens and young adults may come to believe that acting out one’s Jewish identity is potentially uncomfortable and isolating.
(The bold is my emphasis.) This is no different from all “fitting in” behaviors of normal human beings. Whether our couple is JJ or IF, they need Jewish friends for all of the above reasons.
From this study, we can readily conclude that by increasing EDUCATION, HOME RITUAL, and SOCIAL NETWORKS we can positively influence JJ and IF couples to become comfortable with Jewish life and encourage them to embrace and deepen their Jewish practice.
Recommendations to the community
The question that simply leaps off the page is:
If interfaith families in a Reform environment become like Reform Jews, do interfaith families in a Conservative environment become like Conservative Jews?
Are interfaith couples being assimilate into the Jewish community in which they live?
The question can be extended to interfaith couples in an Orthodox environment and a secular environment.
A colleague of mine who was the non-Jewish partner (she has since converted) in a Conservative congregation and participated in a self study that the bay area Conservative moment did of interfaith in their congregations said, “Interfaith families in the Conservative moment know what they are getting into and make the choice to go for greater practice.”
Additionally, I know an interfaith couple at a local Orthodox congregation who is kosher and shomer Shabbos.
We, the on the ground professionals, must press the demographers to explore this vital finding. Perhaps Steven Cohen, a Conservative Jew, would be able to help. Key to the Saxe study is a survey done of the Reform movement’s lay leaders. Perhaps Steve Cohen would know of a comparable study from the Conservative movement that could be used with the 2000 NJPS and the data from Birthright.
ACTION ITEMS
1) Jewish education
Since the 1990 NJPS the community’s focus has been on Jewish education and many studies say it is paying off. But Jewish education must be better, cheaper and longer.
The VAST MAJORITY of our children are educated in synagogue Hebrew schools. These schools have teachers who are not credentialed, poorly paid, part-time and sometimes barely ahead of their students.
Synagogues are perennially short of money, staff and time. Until Jewish funders stop worrying about denominations and movements and put real money into the synagogue schools that are actually educating most Jewish children, we will continue to have inadequately educated Jews. We will continue to lose the struggle to retain a generation.
2) Home ritual
Adult Jews must be provided with the skills and knowledge to practice at home. But that will most likely start outside their home. They need classes that are fun, meaningful and transformative. Here is where Outreach is essential. Our programs are often labeled as NOT supporting the core of born Jews. But we know differently. We have to start collecting the statistics that show the number of shy and ambivalent Jews that utilize our entry point programs to come in. They are often more comfortable in the presence of some non-Jews whom they expect to be less knowledgeable than themselves and therefore, less threatening.
3) Social Networks
In this hideously busy world it is hard to build relationships. Chavurot, classes, and other ongoing multi-session programs are needed to create time and opportunity for individuals to connect. In a couples group or a class setting, people get to know each other over discussion of shared interests and concerns. Outreach programs offer unaffiliated couples and families these bridging opportunities.
I ran a one-year chavura for unaffiliated interfaith families three years ago. They were one of the most disengaged groups I have ever experienced. But they clicked and they continue to meet. Several of them have since joined congregations and I hope their influence will draw in, or at least support, the remaining couples. Time and repetition has an amazing power.
I also used to form chavurot in a synagogue environment 20 years ago. Those chavurot remain intact and the families have not left the synagogue as their children aged and are now leaving home.
Where Do We, the Outreach Professionals, Fit In?
There are no street signs saying, “This way to be Jewish.” There is no section of the Yellow pages in my community that is labeled “Jewish.” In fact, the synagogues in my area are listed under CHURCHES.
The Outreach Professional creates a bridge between the unaffiliated and Jewish life. Our ads in secular media, our websites, our programs - are all entry points to participation.
A community without an Outreach professional is a community without a guide. The Outreach professional functions as the hub to all possible points of engagement for the uninformed seeker - Jewish or not yet Jewish.
I want to look beyond the headlines. This is not a rosy affirmation that interfaith couples turn out to be just like Jewish - Jewish couples.
What is the study saying?
Yes, interfaith couples, when you control for Jewish education level, look very much like JJ couples in the Reform movement.
But look closely, the JJ couples don’t look so good. This is a bit like saying people with pneumonia don’t look any worse than people with the plague.
Looking at the levels of observance and practice studied we see low numbers for both groups.
Very emotionally attached to Israel
JJ couples 17% IF couples 16%
Any Jewish organizational ties
JJ couples 54% IF couples 57%
Usually light Shabbat candles
JJ couples 13% IF couples 12%
Very important to be Jewish
JJ couples 37% IF couples 29%
In essence, this is a startling revelation of the low level of the Reform Jews’ engagement with Jewish life.
But don’t throw in the towel, there is also good news.
Chertok/Saxe identify three critical elements to Jewish engagement.
1) Jewish Education
Remember that all of the above statistics are based on “controlling for education.” That is, a poorly educated Jew, no matter who they marry, doesn’t do much Jewishly. A well educated Jew, no matter who they marry, does – or is significantly more likely to.
As one highly educated Jew in my community put it, “I painted a very orthodox picture of life with me to my (now) husband when we were talking about marriage.” Indeed, she and her husband and children are synagogue affiliated, active in Federation, and the children attend day school.
2) Home Ritual
The study finds that those who have a bank of Jewish memories are more likely to repeat the behaviors those memories are based on. This makes abundant common sense. If you can’t play the piano, do you really identify as a pianist? Do you believe yourself capable of things you have no personal, repeated experience of doing? In order to BE Jewish, one must know how to DO Jewish.
For those who remember the scent of challah baking, the excitement of staying up for Shavuot, making decorations for the sukkah, there is the desire and knowledge to repeat them in adulthood. These practices from childhood are no less powerful than the memories associated with Christmas. We must stock up the Jewish bank with Jewish capital.
Side note: You may be aware that scientists have found that the sense of smell is our longest carrier of memories. In other words, you can smell something from your past and it will arouse a memory better and longer than visual or auditory stimuli. Interestingly this carrying over to smell’s companion sense - taste. Immigrants retain the cuisine of their home culture even after assimilating in other ways to the dominate culture. I frequently encourage my interfaith couples to integrate sensory Jewish experiences into their lives.
3) Social Networks
This study states that having Jewish friends increased the likelihood that an individual will engage in Jewish life and practice.
Studies in all the social sciences report the power of peer influence. A recent study on Early Childhood Education looked at what causes parents to put their children in Jewish preschools. They found the number one factor was the actions of their friends. They titled this: Peer Influence.
What causes kids to join gangs? What supports alcoholics in remaining “dry”? The support and influence of a peer group.
Chertok/Saxe state it brilliantly:
Having Jewish friends growing up and especially in high school may help make Jewish identity and home ritual normative. Jewish summer camps, youth movements, and campus organizations provide environments in which to enact Jewish values and practice Jewish behaviors with peers. Without opportunities for social comparison with a group of Jewish friends, teens and young adults may come to believe that acting out one’s Jewish identity is potentially uncomfortable and isolating.
(The bold is my emphasis.) This is no different from all “fitting in” behaviors of normal human beings. Whether our couple is JJ or IF, they need Jewish friends for all of the above reasons.
From this study, we can readily conclude that by increasing EDUCATION, HOME RITUAL, and SOCIAL NETWORKS we can positively influence JJ and IF couples to become comfortable with Jewish life and encourage them to embrace and deepen their Jewish practice.
Recommendations to the community
The question that simply leaps off the page is:
If interfaith families in a Reform environment become like Reform Jews, do interfaith families in a Conservative environment become like Conservative Jews?
Are interfaith couples being assimilate into the Jewish community in which they live?
The question can be extended to interfaith couples in an Orthodox environment and a secular environment.
A colleague of mine who was the non-Jewish partner (she has since converted) in a Conservative congregation and participated in a self study that the bay area Conservative moment did of interfaith in their congregations said, “Interfaith families in the Conservative moment know what they are getting into and make the choice to go for greater practice.”
Additionally, I know an interfaith couple at a local Orthodox congregation who is kosher and shomer Shabbos.
We, the on the ground professionals, must press the demographers to explore this vital finding. Perhaps Steven Cohen, a Conservative Jew, would be able to help. Key to the Saxe study is a survey done of the Reform movement’s lay leaders. Perhaps Steve Cohen would know of a comparable study from the Conservative movement that could be used with the 2000 NJPS and the data from Birthright.
ACTION ITEMS
1) Jewish education
Since the 1990 NJPS the community’s focus has been on Jewish education and many studies say it is paying off. But Jewish education must be better, cheaper and longer.
The VAST MAJORITY of our children are educated in synagogue Hebrew schools. These schools have teachers who are not credentialed, poorly paid, part-time and sometimes barely ahead of their students.
Synagogues are perennially short of money, staff and time. Until Jewish funders stop worrying about denominations and movements and put real money into the synagogue schools that are actually educating most Jewish children, we will continue to have inadequately educated Jews. We will continue to lose the struggle to retain a generation.
2) Home ritual
Adult Jews must be provided with the skills and knowledge to practice at home. But that will most likely start outside their home. They need classes that are fun, meaningful and transformative. Here is where Outreach is essential. Our programs are often labeled as NOT supporting the core of born Jews. But we know differently. We have to start collecting the statistics that show the number of shy and ambivalent Jews that utilize our entry point programs to come in. They are often more comfortable in the presence of some non-Jews whom they expect to be less knowledgeable than themselves and therefore, less threatening.
3) Social Networks
In this hideously busy world it is hard to build relationships. Chavurot, classes, and other ongoing multi-session programs are needed to create time and opportunity for individuals to connect. In a couples group or a class setting, people get to know each other over discussion of shared interests and concerns. Outreach programs offer unaffiliated couples and families these bridging opportunities.
I ran a one-year chavura for unaffiliated interfaith families three years ago. They were one of the most disengaged groups I have ever experienced. But they clicked and they continue to meet. Several of them have since joined congregations and I hope their influence will draw in, or at least support, the remaining couples. Time and repetition has an amazing power.
I also used to form chavurot in a synagogue environment 20 years ago. Those chavurot remain intact and the families have not left the synagogue as their children aged and are now leaving home.
Where Do We, the Outreach Professionals, Fit In?
There are no street signs saying, “This way to be Jewish.” There is no section of the Yellow pages in my community that is labeled “Jewish.” In fact, the synagogues in my area are listed under CHURCHES.
The Outreach Professional creates a bridge between the unaffiliated and Jewish life. Our ads in secular media, our websites, our programs - are all entry points to participation.
A community without an Outreach professional is a community without a guide. The Outreach professional functions as the hub to all possible points of engagement for the uninformed seeker - Jewish or not yet Jewish.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Reflections on the URJ Biennial & the Coming Study
From the Biennial
Some of us were at the presentation in San Diego at the URJ Biennial in Dec. 2007 by Fern Chertoff and Leonard Saxe on interfaith families. They presented a Powerpoint on their latest study "It's Not Just Who Stands Under the Chuppah." The core message of the study was that when you control for Jewish education level, interfaith families look pretty much like non-Orthodox Jewish inmarried families. (The study itself is due out this month.)
Now there are a LOT of questions that this brings up that I will save for another moment. AND it adds to the data that Bruce Phillips shared with me a couple years ago (and I shared with all of you) about the importance of Jewish education in the perpetuation of Judaism. Like everything else in life, if you don't know how to do it or why to do it, eventually, you don't do it anymore.
There was a point during the workshop in San Diego at which Debbie Antonoff of Pathways Atlanta wondered if what was being presented was saying that Outreach to interfaith couples is irrelevant? Is our work without merit if everything depends on the Jewish educational level of the Jew in the interfaith marriage? I would say firmly, No. I believe that we are like the high school counselors, if you don't know you can get an education, don't know how to get an education, don't think you can afford an education, or think that time for one has passed you by, then you won't even try. We are the high school and college counselors, the college recruiters that go out and tell people, you can, you have access, it's not too expensive, you have a right to it, you can do it whether you're married to a Jew or not -that is- you can become Jewishly educated and so can your children.
I was discussing this question with Rabbi Menachem Creditor (he used to be in Boston and is now at Netivot Shalom in Berkeley, CA). The metaphor we discussed was the individual who is the first in their family to seek a college education. That individual does not know how to navigate the system and needs help in finding their way through it. Additionally, there may be students who don't even know that a college education is a possibility and unless someone reaches out to them with information, support and encouragement, they will never attempt college.
Wisdom from another study/talk
I recently went to the Brandeis site and read a brief article by Saxe titled:
Connecting Diaspora Young Adult to Israel: Lessons from Taglit-Birthright Israel
He sums up his findings with these four points:
1. Young adult Jews want to be connected
2. people-to-people connections are essential
3. education has to involve all of the senses
4. institutions must change and adapt.
These lessons—and others that each of you could draw—are as important as the individual changes that the program has wrought.
These four statements can be said of our work in outreach to the interfaith. They want to be connected, the people-to-people connection is essential -- this goes back to Bruce Phillips' quote, "The most powerful influence on an interfaith couple’s decision to raise their children Jewish is one person reaching out and inviting them to participate in Jewish life." Education must engage the senses and our institutions must adapt.
I think the institutions are adapting, the ones that are not will die and be replaced by new ones. In the bay area Jewish Gateways is an experiential new program that is a working!
Take a look at Rabbi Bridget Wynne's Jewish Gateways site at www.jewishgateways.org
For those organizations that are actually educating the couples and their children, look to Stepping Stones, Phyllis Adler's program in Denver. For information on such programs, you can talk to Lynne Wolfe who ran Pathways in New Jersey for 13 years. I bet when this study comes out the MetroWest Federation will be kicking themselves.
More thoughts to come.
Some of us were at the presentation in San Diego at the URJ Biennial in Dec. 2007 by Fern Chertoff and Leonard Saxe on interfaith families. They presented a Powerpoint on their latest study "It's Not Just Who Stands Under the Chuppah." The core message of the study was that when you control for Jewish education level, interfaith families look pretty much like non-Orthodox Jewish inmarried families. (The study itself is due out this month.)
Now there are a LOT of questions that this brings up that I will save for another moment. AND it adds to the data that Bruce Phillips shared with me a couple years ago (and I shared with all of you) about the importance of Jewish education in the perpetuation of Judaism. Like everything else in life, if you don't know how to do it or why to do it, eventually, you don't do it anymore.
There was a point during the workshop in San Diego at which Debbie Antonoff of Pathways Atlanta wondered if what was being presented was saying that Outreach to interfaith couples is irrelevant? Is our work without merit if everything depends on the Jewish educational level of the Jew in the interfaith marriage? I would say firmly, No. I believe that we are like the high school counselors, if you don't know you can get an education, don't know how to get an education, don't think you can afford an education, or think that time for one has passed you by, then you won't even try. We are the high school and college counselors, the college recruiters that go out and tell people, you can, you have access, it's not too expensive, you have a right to it, you can do it whether you're married to a Jew or not -that is- you can become Jewishly educated and so can your children.
I was discussing this question with Rabbi Menachem Creditor (he used to be in Boston and is now at Netivot Shalom in Berkeley, CA). The metaphor we discussed was the individual who is the first in their family to seek a college education. That individual does not know how to navigate the system and needs help in finding their way through it. Additionally, there may be students who don't even know that a college education is a possibility and unless someone reaches out to them with information, support and encouragement, they will never attempt college.
Wisdom from another study/talk
I recently went to the Brandeis site and read a brief article by Saxe titled:
Connecting Diaspora Young Adult to Israel: Lessons from Taglit-Birthright Israel
He sums up his findings with these four points:
1. Young adult Jews want to be connected
2. people-to-people connections are essential
3. education has to involve all of the senses
4. institutions must change and adapt.
These lessons—and others that each of you could draw—are as important as the individual changes that the program has wrought.
These four statements can be said of our work in outreach to the interfaith. They want to be connected, the people-to-people connection is essential -- this goes back to Bruce Phillips' quote, "The most powerful influence on an interfaith couple’s decision to raise their children Jewish is one person reaching out and inviting them to participate in Jewish life." Education must engage the senses and our institutions must adapt.
I think the institutions are adapting, the ones that are not will die and be replaced by new ones. In the bay area Jewish Gateways is an experiential new program that is a working!
Take a look at Rabbi Bridget Wynne's Jewish Gateways site at www.jewishgateways.org
For those organizations that are actually educating the couples and their children, look to Stepping Stones, Phyllis Adler's program in Denver. For information on such programs, you can talk to Lynne Wolfe who ran Pathways in New Jersey for 13 years. I bet when this study comes out the MetroWest Federation will be kicking themselves.
More thoughts to come.
Friday, March 7, 2008
PEW and Conversion
You have all probably seen the Tobin article on the PEW study, link below.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080303tobinoped03022008.html
I have mixed feelings about it.
I love Gary’s passion and support of converts and conversion. At the same time I am aware of how his fervor is sometimes seen as over the top.
My thoughts on this topic.
I work with many Jews by Choice and seekers and I see them longing to be Jewish and rejoicing when they arrive. I agree that the formal Jewish community is often rude, rejecting and uncertain as to whether they want these new Jews. It’s high time that this changed. At a recent meeting with rabbis I urged them to demand that their congregants at the very least accept as Jews the people converted by their rabbi! I believe there should be no tolerance given to those who claim to cling to Judaism, yet fail to learn enough Jewish law to understand that YES, JUDAISM TAKES CONVERTS. And those people are then JUST JEWS.
I am also tired of the well-meaning politically correct Jews who are so busy telling Jews by choice how liberal and open they are that they fail to hear the less-than-happy experience of the convert. As recently as this week several individuals who are working towards conversion told me they don’t want to be identified as converts for fear of always being “second class.” Just a week ago Jews of color on a panel of converts described their lack of acceptance and recognition as fully Jewish by Caucasian Jews.
So here, I stand with Gary.
But, and this is a big but, he seems to discount Jewish education. Studies do show that the more extensive an individual’s Jewish education is the greater the likelihood that they will retain their Jewish identity and, yes, it lessons the probability they will marry a non-Jew.
I stand if FULL FAVOR of more Jewish education.
Why?
Can you play chopsticks on the piano? I can. And that’s it for me and the piano. I do not call myself a pianist. My mother can play... but that doesn’t make me a pianist.
No one can fully own their Jewish identity without knowledge of how to DO Jewish. The more you know, the better informed your choices will be, the more you are able to make for yourself a joyous Jewish life. Don’t know how to do Shabbat? You won’t be having much fun of Friday night through Saturday.
EVERY Jew should learn more. Just ask the converts!
What should we do?
We must work to offer EDUCATION to every Jew and non-Jew who wants it.
Every Jewish institution needs to determine its boundaries and work within them to welcome the seekers, Jewish or not.
We must be kind, even when we say no.
We must find many ways to say yes.
Yes, you can study with us.
Yes, you can eat and sing with us.
Yes, you can pray with us.
Yes, you can go to the movies, make cookies, dance, laugh, walk, talk, ponder the great question of the universe with us.
Yes, if you want to convert, you can.
My second worry with Gary’s article is that there is an unidentified enemy here. Someone whose “expression of religious freedom is locked somewhere in another time or place.” The vagueness of this straw man makes me nervous. I want to clarify a point for my own comfort. This is not about which stream of Judaism you hold to.
Dr. Joel Crohn put it beautifully in his book, Mixed Matches:
Some families’ objection to intermarriage, though, are genuinely religious. For the truly religious, race, class, ethnicity, and nationality are not the important issues. What they do seek is to have their children carry on what they believe is God’s truth. ... Even if you don’t share their beliefs, it’s important not to stereotype religious devotion as simply another form of intolerance. If you do, you may by confusing belief with bigotry. (pp. 208)
It may be that an Orthodox rabbi cannot accept a Reform convert in a minyan. We may be sad about that, but let’s see it for what it is, a different religious view of Judaism, not bigotry. Let us demonstrate the tolerance we desire from others.
Count your blessings that you are able to accept this or that person more than a more halachical bound Jew. Do you think they don’t suffer for longing to draw us all in? Is their pain not valid? Let us express the same compassion we teach and desire for ourselves.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080303tobinoped03022008.html
I have mixed feelings about it.
I love Gary’s passion and support of converts and conversion. At the same time I am aware of how his fervor is sometimes seen as over the top.
My thoughts on this topic.
I work with many Jews by Choice and seekers and I see them longing to be Jewish and rejoicing when they arrive. I agree that the formal Jewish community is often rude, rejecting and uncertain as to whether they want these new Jews. It’s high time that this changed. At a recent meeting with rabbis I urged them to demand that their congregants at the very least accept as Jews the people converted by their rabbi! I believe there should be no tolerance given to those who claim to cling to Judaism, yet fail to learn enough Jewish law to understand that YES, JUDAISM TAKES CONVERTS. And those people are then JUST JEWS.
I am also tired of the well-meaning politically correct Jews who are so busy telling Jews by choice how liberal and open they are that they fail to hear the less-than-happy experience of the convert. As recently as this week several individuals who are working towards conversion told me they don’t want to be identified as converts for fear of always being “second class.” Just a week ago Jews of color on a panel of converts described their lack of acceptance and recognition as fully Jewish by Caucasian Jews.
So here, I stand with Gary.
But, and this is a big but, he seems to discount Jewish education. Studies do show that the more extensive an individual’s Jewish education is the greater the likelihood that they will retain their Jewish identity and, yes, it lessons the probability they will marry a non-Jew.
I stand if FULL FAVOR of more Jewish education.
Why?
Can you play chopsticks on the piano? I can. And that’s it for me and the piano. I do not call myself a pianist. My mother can play... but that doesn’t make me a pianist.
No one can fully own their Jewish identity without knowledge of how to DO Jewish. The more you know, the better informed your choices will be, the more you are able to make for yourself a joyous Jewish life. Don’t know how to do Shabbat? You won’t be having much fun of Friday night through Saturday.
EVERY Jew should learn more. Just ask the converts!
What should we do?
We must work to offer EDUCATION to every Jew and non-Jew who wants it.
Every Jewish institution needs to determine its boundaries and work within them to welcome the seekers, Jewish or not.
We must be kind, even when we say no.
We must find many ways to say yes.
Yes, you can study with us.
Yes, you can eat and sing with us.
Yes, you can pray with us.
Yes, you can go to the movies, make cookies, dance, laugh, walk, talk, ponder the great question of the universe with us.
Yes, if you want to convert, you can.
My second worry with Gary’s article is that there is an unidentified enemy here. Someone whose “expression of religious freedom is locked somewhere in another time or place.” The vagueness of this straw man makes me nervous. I want to clarify a point for my own comfort. This is not about which stream of Judaism you hold to.
Dr. Joel Crohn put it beautifully in his book, Mixed Matches:
Some families’ objection to intermarriage, though, are genuinely religious. For the truly religious, race, class, ethnicity, and nationality are not the important issues. What they do seek is to have their children carry on what they believe is God’s truth. ... Even if you don’t share their beliefs, it’s important not to stereotype religious devotion as simply another form of intolerance. If you do, you may by confusing belief with bigotry. (pp. 208)
It may be that an Orthodox rabbi cannot accept a Reform convert in a minyan. We may be sad about that, but let’s see it for what it is, a different religious view of Judaism, not bigotry. Let us demonstrate the tolerance we desire from others.
Count your blessings that you are able to accept this or that person more than a more halachical bound Jew. Do you think they don’t suffer for longing to draw us all in? Is their pain not valid? Let us express the same compassion we teach and desire for ourselves.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Putting PEW in perspective
The PEW study has begun to make the rounds and the interpretations are emerging from the Jewish community. You can read the JTA article by Sue Fishkoff at this link:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008022620080225PEWreport.html
One thing that I wanted clarified was, how did PEW get the percent of intermarriage to be so much lower than NJPS did? So I emailed Dr. Bruce Phillips. Here’s his answer:
They are looking only at Jew by religion. Secular Jews are more likely to marry a non-Jew. The rate reported by NJPS was something like 48%, so these two estimates are probably not all that far off.
For those of us who like to ponder numbers he adds:
The highest possible rate for Protestants, by the way, is 50% since half the country is Protestant. You have to remember the ceiling when comparing religions.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008022620080225PEWreport.html
One thing that I wanted clarified was, how did PEW get the percent of intermarriage to be so much lower than NJPS did? So I emailed Dr. Bruce Phillips. Here’s his answer:
They are looking only at Jew by religion. Secular Jews are more likely to marry a non-Jew. The rate reported by NJPS was something like 48%, so these two estimates are probably not all that far off.
For those of us who like to ponder numbers he adds:
The highest possible rate for Protestants, by the way, is 50% since half the country is Protestant. You have to remember the ceiling when comparing religions.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Religion in America: 2008 PEW Study
Yesterday a friend of mine, a research librarian, emailed me the link to the brand new:
U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008
Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
(http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)
This morning on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle was the story:
28% of us have left our childhood religion
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/26/MN18V8DHG.DTL)
Check your local papers and send me what they printed.
I read through the Pew report yesterday and picked out the Jewish elements and those national religion parts that I believe reflects on the American Jewish community. Take a look for yourself.
U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008
Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
(http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)
The Landscape Survey confirms that, indeed, there is a remarkable amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another. Together with other sources of change in religious affiliation, such as immigration and fertility rates, this shifting helps account for the great dynamism of American religion. Looking only at changes from one major religious tradition to another (e.g., from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Judaism to no religion), more than one-in-four U.S. adults (28%) have changed their religious affiliation from that in which they were raised.
pp. 22
EVERYONE is leaving religion, not just the Jews.
Net Winners and Losers
Which groups are the net winners and losers in the dynamic process of shifting religious affiliation? By comparing the distribution of the current religious affiliations of U.S. adults with their childhood religious affiliations, the Landscape Survey is able to provide a clear sense of the net effect of these movements within American religion.
The biggest gains due to changes in religious affiliation have been among those who say they are not affiliated with any particular religious group or tradition. Overall, 7.3% of the adult population says they were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child. Today, however, 16.1% of adults say they are unaffiliated, a net increase of 8.8 percentage points. Sizeable numbers of those raised in all religions – from Catholicism to Protestantism to Judaism – are currently unaffiliated with any particular religion.
American Jewish population
Americans raised Jewish are 1.9% of the population. Americans now Jewish are 1.7% of the population, a loss of 0.2%
The Dynamics of Religious Change
As stated above, although there are net winners and losers in the process of religious change, no group is simply losing members or simply gaining members. Rather, each religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing members. To get the most complete picture of the dynamism of the American religious landscape, one must look at the total number of people entering and leaving each religion.
Of the American Jewish population:
Raised Jewish 1.9%
Converted to Judaism + 0.3%
Left Judaism - 0.5%
Now Jewish 1.7%
(If conversion increases by a mere .2% we will be gaining as many Jews as we are losing. Interesting thought. What would all that positive energy and engagement say to the born Jews?)
Affiliation Patterns: Coming, Going and Staying Put
In addition to documenting the high degree of religious movement in the U.S. population and the net winners and losers from changes in affiliation, analysis of the Landscape Survey also details which groups are most heavily comprised of people who have changed their affiliation, what faiths these people came from and which religious groups are most successful at retaining their childhood members.
The religious traditions most heavily comprised of people who have switched affiliation include the unaffiliated, Buddhists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, members of the “other faiths” category (e.g., Unitarians, members of New Age groups and members of Native American religions) and members of the “other Christian” tradition (including metaphysical Christians). For instance, more than two-thirds of Jehovah’s Witnesses were raised in some other faith or were not affiliated with any particular religion as a child, as were nearly three-quarters of Buddhists. Among people who are currently unaffiliated with any particular religion, nearly eight-in-ten were raised as members of one religion or another.
(I remember a fellow on a panel of adult children from interfaith homes saying his parents had "compromised" and become Unitarians. He has since become Jewish. He said, "No one is born and stays Unitarian. You either enter or leave it." Interesting perspective.)
Hindus, Catholics and Jews are the groups with the lowest proportion of members who have switched affiliation to these respective faiths. Overall, nine-in-ten Hindus were raised Hindu, 89% of Catholics were raised Catholic and 85% of Jews were raised Jewish.
(Ask yourself, what do these three groups share?)
Jewish:
15% raised Jewish switched religions
85% raised Jewish and remain Jewish
=100%
pp. 27
where did the new members come from?
Now Jewish:
5% Protestant
3% Catholic
2% all other faiths
5% not raised in a Faith
15% (of the total Jewish population = converts)
pp. 29
Retention of Childhood Members
Finally, the Landscape Survey makes it possible to look at which groups are most successful in retaining their childhood members. Hinduism exhibits the highest overall retention rate, with more than eight-in-ten (84%) adults who were raised as Hindu still identifying themselves as Hindu. The Mormon, Orthodox and Jewish traditions all have retention rates of at least 70%, while the retention rate for Catholics is 68%.
As mentioned previously, the group that has exhibited the strongest growth as a result of changes in affiliation is the unaffiliated population. Nevertheless, the overall retention rate of the unaffiliated population is relatively low (46%) compared with other groups. This means that more than half (54%) of those who were not affiliated with any particular religion as a child now identify themselves as members of one religion or another.
Two of the religious groups with the lowest retention rates are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Buddhists. Only slightly more than a third (37%) of adults who were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses still identify themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Half of all of those who were raised as Buddhists (50%) are still Buddhists.
Of the Jewish population:
76% were born Jewish and remain Jewish
9% converted to another religion
14% converted to no religion
pp. 30
(Compare with Protestant)
Overall, then, 80% of those who were raised as Protestant are still Protestant,
either within the same denominational family in which they were raised (52%) or within another Protestant family (28%). So only one-in-five (20%) adults who were raised as Protestant have left Protestantism altogether (7% for a non-Protestant religion and 13% for no religion at all).
Who Changes Affiliation?
Though the rates of change in affiliation among the different age groups are fairly comparable, there are interesting generational differences in the types of affiliation changes people undergo.
Among people age 70 and older, for instance, more than half of people who have changed affiliation have switched affiliation from one family to another within a religious tradition (e.g., from one Protestant denominational family to another). Among those under age 30, by contrast, roughly three-quarters of those who have changed affiliation left one religious tradition for another (e.g., left Protestantism for Catholicism) or for no religion at all.
With respect to other demographic characteristics, the Landscape Survey reveals few major demographic differences in the rates of religious change.
Gender
For instance, men are only slightly more likely to switch affiliation than women (45% vs. 42%).
Education
Similarly, there are few differences among adults with different educational backgrounds. Americans with a high school education or less are only somewhat less likely to have switched affiliation from the religion in which they were raised (41%) than people with at least some college education, college graduates and people with a post-graduate education (46%, 45% and 47%, respectively).
Religiously Mixed Marriages and Changes in Affiliation
The Landscape Survey finds that 27% of married people are in religiously mixed marriages. If marriages between people of different Protestant denominational families are included, the number of married people in religiously mixed marriages is nearly four-in-ten (37%). Among married couples, young people are more likely to be in religiously mixed marriages as compared with their older counterparts.
Among all the major religious traditions, Hindus and Mormons are most likely to have a spouse with the same religion (90% and 83%, respectively). Nearly four-in-five Catholics (78%) and seven-in-ten Jews (69%) are also married to someone with the same religious affiliation. By contrast, majorities of the unaffiliated population, members of the “other faiths” category and Buddhists are married to someone of a different religious background than their own. For example, only four-in-ten (41%) unaffiliated adults are married to a spouse who is also unaffiliated.
For Jews, Spouse is:
same religion 69%
Different religion 31%
Protestant 7%
Catholic 12%
all other religions 3%
No religious affiliation 8%
The Landscape Survey findings also make it possible to gauge, at least indirectly, the importance of marriage in changes in religious affiliation.
To the extent that people change their religious affiliation to match that of their spouse, one would expect to find lower rates of religiously mixed marriages among people who have changed affiliation than among those who have not switched. In fact, the survey finds just the opposite to be true: The incidence of religiously mixed marriages is much higher among people who have switched affiliation (50%) than among married people who have retained the religious affiliation of their youth (28%).
Intermarriage and Change in Affiliation
Spouse has...
Same religion Different religion
Among…
All married people 63% 37%
Married, has not changed religion 72% 28%
Married, has changed religion 50% 50%
Religious Composition of Age Groups
Jewish 2% of total population
18 - 29 2% of age group
30 - 39 2%
40 - 49 1%
50 - 59 1%
60 - 69 1%
70+ 2%
Age Distribution of Religious Traditions
Jews, too, tend to be older than other religious groups, with 51% age 50 and older.
Jewish population
age 18 - 29 20%
age 30 - 49 29%
age 50 - 65 29%
age 65+ 22%
Religious Affiliation of Racial and Ethnic Groups
Jewish - total percent of population is 2%
of white population 2%
Of Black population <0.5%
Of Asian population <0.5%
Other (mixed race) 1%
Latino <0.5%
Of all the major racial and ethnic groups in the U.S., blacks are the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation.
Asians are the ethnic group most likely to be unaffiliated.
In the Landscape Survey, a solid majority of Hispanics (58%) identify as Catholic, but nearly one-in-four are members of evangelical (16%) or other (8%) Protestant churches. Hispanics are about as likely as blacks to say they have no religious affiliation, and very few (2%) say they are atheist or agnostic.
Nearly a third (30%) of all whites are members of evangelical churches, almost twice the number who identify as unaffiliated (16%). About one-in-five (22%) whites are Catholic and a similar number (23%) are members of mainline Protestant churches.
Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Religious Traditions: Jewish
White 95%
Black 1%
Asian 0%
mixed 2%
Latino 3%
(I am going to email Diane and Gary Tobin about these numbers. They don't feel - or look - like the bay area community to me.)
Gender:
Jews, Muslims and Buddhists are composed of slightly more men than women.
Educational Levels of Religious Groups
Education level: less than HS High Sch some college college grad postgrad
Total Population: 14 36 23 16 11
Jewish 3 19 19 24 35
(If you stay in college longer, you probably delay having kids...)
Number of Children at Home for Religious Traditions: Jewish
0 children under 18 in home 72%
One child under 18 in home 9%
Two Children under 18 living 11%
Three plus 8%
U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008
Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
(http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)
This morning on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle was the story:
28% of us have left our childhood religion
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/26/MN18V8DHG.DTL)
Check your local papers and send me what they printed.
I read through the Pew report yesterday and picked out the Jewish elements and those national religion parts that I believe reflects on the American Jewish community. Take a look for yourself.
U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008
Source: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
(http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)
The Landscape Survey confirms that, indeed, there is a remarkable amount of movement by Americans from one religious group to another. Together with other sources of change in religious affiliation, such as immigration and fertility rates, this shifting helps account for the great dynamism of American religion. Looking only at changes from one major religious tradition to another (e.g., from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Judaism to no religion), more than one-in-four U.S. adults (28%) have changed their religious affiliation from that in which they were raised.
pp. 22
EVERYONE is leaving religion, not just the Jews.
Net Winners and Losers
Which groups are the net winners and losers in the dynamic process of shifting religious affiliation? By comparing the distribution of the current religious affiliations of U.S. adults with their childhood religious affiliations, the Landscape Survey is able to provide a clear sense of the net effect of these movements within American religion.
The biggest gains due to changes in religious affiliation have been among those who say they are not affiliated with any particular religious group or tradition. Overall, 7.3% of the adult population says they were unaffiliated with any particular religion as a child. Today, however, 16.1% of adults say they are unaffiliated, a net increase of 8.8 percentage points. Sizeable numbers of those raised in all religions – from Catholicism to Protestantism to Judaism – are currently unaffiliated with any particular religion.
American Jewish population
Americans raised Jewish are 1.9% of the population. Americans now Jewish are 1.7% of the population, a loss of 0.2%
The Dynamics of Religious Change
As stated above, although there are net winners and losers in the process of religious change, no group is simply losing members or simply gaining members. Rather, each religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing members. To get the most complete picture of the dynamism of the American religious landscape, one must look at the total number of people entering and leaving each religion.
Of the American Jewish population:
Raised Jewish 1.9%
Converted to Judaism + 0.3%
Left Judaism - 0.5%
Now Jewish 1.7%
(If conversion increases by a mere .2% we will be gaining as many Jews as we are losing. Interesting thought. What would all that positive energy and engagement say to the born Jews?)
Affiliation Patterns: Coming, Going and Staying Put
In addition to documenting the high degree of religious movement in the U.S. population and the net winners and losers from changes in affiliation, analysis of the Landscape Survey also details which groups are most heavily comprised of people who have changed their affiliation, what faiths these people came from and which religious groups are most successful at retaining their childhood members.
The religious traditions most heavily comprised of people who have switched affiliation include the unaffiliated, Buddhists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, members of the “other faiths” category (e.g., Unitarians, members of New Age groups and members of Native American religions) and members of the “other Christian” tradition (including metaphysical Christians). For instance, more than two-thirds of Jehovah’s Witnesses were raised in some other faith or were not affiliated with any particular religion as a child, as were nearly three-quarters of Buddhists. Among people who are currently unaffiliated with any particular religion, nearly eight-in-ten were raised as members of one religion or another.
(I remember a fellow on a panel of adult children from interfaith homes saying his parents had "compromised" and become Unitarians. He has since become Jewish. He said, "No one is born and stays Unitarian. You either enter or leave it." Interesting perspective.)
Hindus, Catholics and Jews are the groups with the lowest proportion of members who have switched affiliation to these respective faiths. Overall, nine-in-ten Hindus were raised Hindu, 89% of Catholics were raised Catholic and 85% of Jews were raised Jewish.
(Ask yourself, what do these three groups share?)
Jewish:
15% raised Jewish switched religions
85% raised Jewish and remain Jewish
=100%
pp. 27
where did the new members come from?
Now Jewish:
5% Protestant
3% Catholic
2% all other faiths
5% not raised in a Faith
15% (of the total Jewish population = converts)
pp. 29
Retention of Childhood Members
Finally, the Landscape Survey makes it possible to look at which groups are most successful in retaining their childhood members. Hinduism exhibits the highest overall retention rate, with more than eight-in-ten (84%) adults who were raised as Hindu still identifying themselves as Hindu. The Mormon, Orthodox and Jewish traditions all have retention rates of at least 70%, while the retention rate for Catholics is 68%.
As mentioned previously, the group that has exhibited the strongest growth as a result of changes in affiliation is the unaffiliated population. Nevertheless, the overall retention rate of the unaffiliated population is relatively low (46%) compared with other groups. This means that more than half (54%) of those who were not affiliated with any particular religion as a child now identify themselves as members of one religion or another.
Two of the religious groups with the lowest retention rates are Jehovah’s Witnesses and Buddhists. Only slightly more than a third (37%) of adults who were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses still identify themselves as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Half of all of those who were raised as Buddhists (50%) are still Buddhists.
Of the Jewish population:
76% were born Jewish and remain Jewish
9% converted to another religion
14% converted to no religion
pp. 30
(Compare with Protestant)
Overall, then, 80% of those who were raised as Protestant are still Protestant,
either within the same denominational family in which they were raised (52%) or within another Protestant family (28%). So only one-in-five (20%) adults who were raised as Protestant have left Protestantism altogether (7% for a non-Protestant religion and 13% for no religion at all).
Who Changes Affiliation?
Though the rates of change in affiliation among the different age groups are fairly comparable, there are interesting generational differences in the types of affiliation changes people undergo.
Among people age 70 and older, for instance, more than half of people who have changed affiliation have switched affiliation from one family to another within a religious tradition (e.g., from one Protestant denominational family to another). Among those under age 30, by contrast, roughly three-quarters of those who have changed affiliation left one religious tradition for another (e.g., left Protestantism for Catholicism) or for no religion at all.
With respect to other demographic characteristics, the Landscape Survey reveals few major demographic differences in the rates of religious change.
Gender
For instance, men are only slightly more likely to switch affiliation than women (45% vs. 42%).
Education
Similarly, there are few differences among adults with different educational backgrounds. Americans with a high school education or less are only somewhat less likely to have switched affiliation from the religion in which they were raised (41%) than people with at least some college education, college graduates and people with a post-graduate education (46%, 45% and 47%, respectively).
Religiously Mixed Marriages and Changes in Affiliation
The Landscape Survey finds that 27% of married people are in religiously mixed marriages. If marriages between people of different Protestant denominational families are included, the number of married people in religiously mixed marriages is nearly four-in-ten (37%). Among married couples, young people are more likely to be in religiously mixed marriages as compared with their older counterparts.
Among all the major religious traditions, Hindus and Mormons are most likely to have a spouse with the same religion (90% and 83%, respectively). Nearly four-in-five Catholics (78%) and seven-in-ten Jews (69%) are also married to someone with the same religious affiliation. By contrast, majorities of the unaffiliated population, members of the “other faiths” category and Buddhists are married to someone of a different religious background than their own. For example, only four-in-ten (41%) unaffiliated adults are married to a spouse who is also unaffiliated.
For Jews, Spouse is:
same religion 69%
Different religion 31%
Protestant 7%
Catholic 12%
all other religions 3%
No religious affiliation 8%
The Landscape Survey findings also make it possible to gauge, at least indirectly, the importance of marriage in changes in religious affiliation.
To the extent that people change their religious affiliation to match that of their spouse, one would expect to find lower rates of religiously mixed marriages among people who have changed affiliation than among those who have not switched. In fact, the survey finds just the opposite to be true: The incidence of religiously mixed marriages is much higher among people who have switched affiliation (50%) than among married people who have retained the religious affiliation of their youth (28%).
Intermarriage and Change in Affiliation
Spouse has...
Same religion Different religion
Among…
All married people 63% 37%
Married, has not changed religion 72% 28%
Married, has changed religion 50% 50%
Religious Composition of Age Groups
Jewish 2% of total population
18 - 29 2% of age group
30 - 39 2%
40 - 49 1%
50 - 59 1%
60 - 69 1%
70+ 2%
Age Distribution of Religious Traditions
Jews, too, tend to be older than other religious groups, with 51% age 50 and older.
Jewish population
age 18 - 29 20%
age 30 - 49 29%
age 50 - 65 29%
age 65+ 22%
Religious Affiliation of Racial and Ethnic Groups
Jewish - total percent of population is 2%
of white population 2%
Of Black population <0.5%
Of Asian population <0.5%
Other (mixed race) 1%
Latino <0.5%
Of all the major racial and ethnic groups in the U.S., blacks are the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation.
Asians are the ethnic group most likely to be unaffiliated.
In the Landscape Survey, a solid majority of Hispanics (58%) identify as Catholic, but nearly one-in-four are members of evangelical (16%) or other (8%) Protestant churches. Hispanics are about as likely as blacks to say they have no religious affiliation, and very few (2%) say they are atheist or agnostic.
Nearly a third (30%) of all whites are members of evangelical churches, almost twice the number who identify as unaffiliated (16%). About one-in-five (22%) whites are Catholic and a similar number (23%) are members of mainline Protestant churches.
Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Religious Traditions: Jewish
White 95%
Black 1%
Asian 0%
mixed 2%
Latino 3%
(I am going to email Diane and Gary Tobin about these numbers. They don't feel - or look - like the bay area community to me.)
Gender:
Jews, Muslims and Buddhists are composed of slightly more men than women.
Educational Levels of Religious Groups
Education level: less than HS High Sch some college college grad postgrad
Total Population: 14 36 23 16 11
Jewish 3 19 19 24 35
(If you stay in college longer, you probably delay having kids...)
Number of Children at Home for Religious Traditions: Jewish
0 children under 18 in home 72%
One child under 18 in home 9%
Two Children under 18 living 11%
Three plus 8%
Friday, January 4, 2008
Jewish Generations
I am sending you a link to an article that focuses on Federation philanthropy, but philanthropy is not what I'm interested in. What I find very interesting is the discussion of the various age groups and their concept of "Jewish engagement." This is something we are all interested in.
Note in the article that the author speaks about four age groups -
The Traditionalists (born between 1925 and 1945)
Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964)
Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980)
Gen Y (born between 1981 and 1999)
Now the type of engagement that the author was looking at is philanthropic. But the answers sometimes went outside the lines.
Engagement meant --
To The Traditionalist: Creating an agency for young adults.
To the Baby Boomer -- creating outreach activities for 20-somethings
To Gen X -- having a seat at the allocations table
To Gen Y -- having a meaningful experience of Jewish life having nothing to do with allocating dollars or attending social events.
Sounds like there's a party being planned for people who may not attend.
For the entire article go to:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20071105sharnaoped.html
Note in the article that the author speaks about four age groups -
The Traditionalists (born between 1925 and 1945)
Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964)
Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980)
Gen Y (born between 1981 and 1999)
Now the type of engagement that the author was looking at is philanthropic. But the answers sometimes went outside the lines.
Engagement meant --
To The Traditionalist: Creating an agency for young adults.
To the Baby Boomer -- creating outreach activities for 20-somethings
To Gen X -- having a seat at the allocations table
To Gen Y -- having a meaningful experience of Jewish life having nothing to do with allocating dollars or attending social events.
Sounds like there's a party being planned for people who may not attend.
For the entire article go to:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20071105sharnaoped.html
Next Generation of Jewish Children: study by Ariela Keysar
Next Generation of Jewish Children
On a quarterly call for professionals by InterfaithFamily.com call September 2007 there was a presentation by Ariela Keysar, a Jewish demographer and co-author of Next Generation: Jewish Children and Adolescents. Jews remain very much in step with the American public as we move towards secularism. For those of us working to maintain a thriving Jewish community and growing Jewish population right here in America, this woman had a lot of information. I'm ordering the book and suggest you do too. It costs less than $3 (ouch for all the authors on this list) so don't say the price held you back.
http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=4673056&wauth=Ariela&matches=18&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title
On a quarterly call for professionals by InterfaithFamily.com call September 2007 there was a presentation by Ariela Keysar, a Jewish demographer and co-author of Next Generation: Jewish Children and Adolescents. Jews remain very much in step with the American public as we move towards secularism. For those of us working to maintain a thriving Jewish community and growing Jewish population right here in America, this woman had a lot of information. I'm ordering the book and suggest you do too. It costs less than $3 (ouch for all the authors on this list) so don't say the price held you back.
http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=4673056&wauth=Ariela&matches=18&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title
Saxe Chertok study
I want to be sure you all saw the article by Sue Fishkoff on new study by Saxe and Chertok that was briefly covered at the URJ biennial last week.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2007122320071220duellingintermarriage.html
Let me know what you think after reading it.
Here are some key elements I think deserve notice -
* the power of a Jewish education (this is the same info that Bruce Phillips gave me a year ago - I forwarded Bruce's study to Rosanne) Saxe isn't the first to uncover this, but I'm glad the word is out
* during the Saxe presentation Debbi Antonoff, head of the outreach program in Atlanta, GA turned to me and said, "So our work is irrelevant?" An important question since Saxe brushed over how we GET to the point of adults being Jewishly educated enough to want to raise Jewish kids
* Sue's article included comments from Steven Cohen. Much as I disagree with Cohen's razor blade approach to Jewish engagement I can't deny that he brings up the very statistics that I raised to Saxe and Saxe refused to answer: What say you to the research that finds that the grandchildren of interfaith couples don't identify as Jews? His response was a change of subject.
* It is a very bad thing that "outreach" continues to be confused with "conversion efforts" None of us suggest to couples that the way out of the interfaith questions in their lives is to pop the non-Jewish partner in the mikvah. This attitude does damage to the outreach we do and it makes a lot of institutions respond by tightening the doors to keep out seekers.
* And the question that we in Outreach must ask again and again, What do you mean when you say you want to raise your children as _______________? In this case, Cohen says "Jews" but I am usually asking it as, "What do you mean you when say you want to raise your children as both." A vital question and one that we in outreach believe we can help with.
* note that in all these studies the IF families are compared to "non-Orthodox" Jewish families - just be aware of where that can be taken
* the Maine study vs the Detroit study is significant to outreach and goes back to Debbie's question. I disagree with Sheskin's conclusion that the IF couples are looking for someone who "looks like them" but he is right that they looking to be welcomed. So there we are again, back to Outreach!
Well, here begins 2008 with a full plate!
Cheers to you my friends,
Dawn
p.s. Meanwhile the children of interfaith marriage have to continue to live day to day and we offer little support to them. Here's a cartoon just sent to me. On the topic of the child of interfaith marriage. Honest & sad. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/23/opinion/23opart.ready.html
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2007122320071220duellingintermarriage.html
Let me know what you think after reading it.
Here are some key elements I think deserve notice -
* the power of a Jewish education (this is the same info that Bruce Phillips gave me a year ago - I forwarded Bruce's study to Rosanne) Saxe isn't the first to uncover this, but I'm glad the word is out
* during the Saxe presentation Debbi Antonoff, head of the outreach program in Atlanta, GA turned to me and said, "So our work is irrelevant?" An important question since Saxe brushed over how we GET to the point of adults being Jewishly educated enough to want to raise Jewish kids
* Sue's article included comments from Steven Cohen. Much as I disagree with Cohen's razor blade approach to Jewish engagement I can't deny that he brings up the very statistics that I raised to Saxe and Saxe refused to answer: What say you to the research that finds that the grandchildren of interfaith couples don't identify as Jews? His response was a change of subject.
* It is a very bad thing that "outreach" continues to be confused with "conversion efforts" None of us suggest to couples that the way out of the interfaith questions in their lives is to pop the non-Jewish partner in the mikvah. This attitude does damage to the outreach we do and it makes a lot of institutions respond by tightening the doors to keep out seekers.
* And the question that we in Outreach must ask again and again, What do you mean when you say you want to raise your children as _______________? In this case, Cohen says "Jews" but I am usually asking it as, "What do you mean you when say you want to raise your children as both." A vital question and one that we in outreach believe we can help with.
* note that in all these studies the IF families are compared to "non-Orthodox" Jewish families - just be aware of where that can be taken
* the Maine study vs the Detroit study is significant to outreach and goes back to Debbie's question. I disagree with Sheskin's conclusion that the IF couples are looking for someone who "looks like them" but he is right that they looking to be welcomed. So there we are again, back to Outreach!
Well, here begins 2008 with a full plate!
Cheers to you my friends,
Dawn
p.s. Meanwhile the children of interfaith marriage have to continue to live day to day and we offer little support to them. Here's a cartoon just sent to me. On the topic of the child of interfaith marriage. Honest & sad. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/23/opinion/23opart.ready.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
