Summary Report - Berman Jewish DataBank

Transcription

The 2008
Jewish Community Study
of Greater Middlesex County
Summary Report
Ira M. Sheskin, Ph.D.
Director of the Jewish Demography Project
of the Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies
and
Associate Professor
Department of Geography and Regional Studies
University of Miami
[email protected]
Electronic copies of the data, reports, and slides from this study are available at
www.JewishMiddlesex.org and www.jewishdatabank.org.
January 2009
Tevet 5769
Demographic Study Committees
Barry Sherman
Study Chair
Ruth Bash
Arthur Cohen
Miriam Eichler
Arthur Fliegelman
Dr. Albert Friedes
Martin Friedman
Arlene Frumkin
Mitchell Frumkin
Dr. Albert Hochhauser
Brian Kheel
Dana Korbman
Dr. Steven Lenger
Elaine Machtiger
Dr. Joseph Naus
Sheryl Olitzky
Ruth Marcus Patt
Dr. David Rabinowitz
Dr. Nathan Reiss
Paul Rovinsky
Abraham Schwartzbard
Udi Shorr
Dr. Eliot Spack
Florence Stein
Dr. Michael Wasserman
David Yellin
Lee Livingston, President
Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County
Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County Staff
Gerrie Bamira, Executive Director
Susan Antman, Associate Director
Laura Safran, Planning and Allocations Director
Study Director
Dr. Ira M. Sheskin
-ii-
Dear Friends,
We are pleased to present the results of the Greater Middlesex Community
Study, conducted by renowned demographer Dr. Ira Sheskin.
This document paints a picture of a Jewish community at an extraordinary
moment in time. While the data reflect basic information -how many Jews live
in Middlesex County; our levels of Jewish commitment, observance and
education; rates of intermarriage; income and age levels; and the current
demand for social services under Jewish auspices - it also points us toward the
future, creating a vision of a vibrant community that unites to strengthen
Jewish life in Middlesex County.
The data will only be as helpful as is our willingness to use it wisely. The Jewish
Federation has launched a major community planning initiative, chaired by
Seth Gross, which will engage synagogues, agencies, and individuals
throughout the community in setting goals and developing strategies to
address key themes that emerge from this study. Continue to visit
www.JewishMiddlesex.org, where we will share information as our planning
work progresses.
We are very proud of the collaborative effort that produced this document –
and are confident that these data will be instrumental in helping all of us work
together to touch Jewish lives and build Jewish community in Greater
Middlesex County, in Israel, and around the world.
Sincerely,
Lee Livingston
President
Director
Barry Sherman
Study Chair
Gerrie Bamira
Executive
-iv-
Table of Contents
Page
Major Themes of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Maps.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi
Major Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Geographic Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Demographic Profile–Age.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Demographic Profile–Household Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Demographic Profile–Household Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Demographic Profile–Marital Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Demographic Profile–Secular Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Demographic Profile–Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Demographic Profile–Housing Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Demographic Profile–Household Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Religious Profile–Jewish Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Religious Profile–Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Religious Profile–Synagogue Attendance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Religious Profile–Types of Marriage.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Membership Profile–Synagogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Membership Profile–JCC and Jewish Organizations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Feel Part of the Jewish Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Jewish Education of Adults–Formal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Jewish Education of Adults–Informal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Jewish Education of Children–Preschool/Child Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Jewish Education of Children–Jewish Day School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Jewish Education of Children–School Age Children.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Jewish Education of Children–Informal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Jewish Agencies–Familiarity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Jewish Day Schools–Familiarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Jewish Agencies–Perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Jewish Day Schools–Perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
-v-
Table of Contents
Page
Social Service Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Preference for Jewish-Sponsored Adult Care Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Israel–Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Emotional Attachment to Israel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Anti-Semitism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
The Media.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Philanthropic Profile–Overall Donations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Philanthropic Profile–JFGMC Donations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Philanthropic Profile–Other Donations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Philanthropic Profile–Market Share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Philanthropic Profile–Wills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Philanthropic Profile–Volunteerism.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Philanthropic Profile–Attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
-vi-
Major Themes of the Study
Middlesex Has Shown a Small Decrease in Jewish Population
in Recent Years and This Decrease Is Likely to Continue
56,600 persons live in 24,000 Jewish households in Middlesex, of whom 52,000 persons
(92%) are Jewish. In addition to the 52,000 Jews in Middlesex, the Jewish Federation of
Greater Middlesex County also serves another 3,500 Jews in zip code 08873 (Somerset)
in Somerset County. Middlesex has the third largest Jewish population in New Jersey. 9%
of households in Middlesex are Jewish households, which is the seventh highest of about
50 comparison Jewish communities.
Three findings should be considered in examining changes in the size of the Middlesex
Jewish community from 2000-2008. First, according to the Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN)
Counting Project, the number of Jewish households decreased 14%, from an estimated
27,900 households in 2000 to 24,000 households in 2008. Some of this decrease may very
well be due to an increase in cell phone-only households, particularly in the area around
Rutgers, who are not listed in the telephone directories used for the DJN Counting Project.
Second, according to the Jewish Federation Survey, the number of Jewish households
who donated to the Jewish Federation Annual Campaign decreased by 27%, from 5,383
households in 2000 to 3,928 households in 2008. Third, according to the Synagogue
Survey, the number of households in Middlesex who are members of a synagogue located
in Middlesex or neighboring communities increased by 7%, from 8,839 households in 2000
to 9,467 households in 2008. The first two findings suggest a possible decrease in Jewish
population, while the third points to a potential increase. However, note that an increase
in synagogue membership may still occur in the face of a decrease in Jewish population.
The study’s findings suggest future stability in the Jewish population attributable to
migration. 11% of Jewish households in Middlesex moved to the local community in the
past five years, which is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities.
The 11% suggests that an average of 523 Jewish households who currently live in
Middlesex moved to Middlesex each year during the past five years (the in-migration rate).
The 7% of Jewish households who will definitely or probably (3% definitely and 4%
probably) move out of Middlesex within the next three years, which is about average
among about 35 comparison Jewish communities, suggests that an average of between
232 and 520 Jewish households will move out of Middlesex each year within the next three
years (the out-migration rate). Assuming that the current rate of in-migration continues for
the next few years, these data suggest that the number of Jewish households in Middlesex
will probably not change significantly during the next few years as a result of migration into
and out of Middlesex.
A decrease in the Middlesex Jewish population may result in the future from a birth rate
that is lower than the death rate in the Jewish community. Middlesex has a large elderly
population. 36% of persons in Jewish households are age 65 and over, compared to 16%
nationally (NJPS 2000) and 13% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of
2007. More importantly, 23% of persons in Jewish households are age 75 and over,
compared to 8% nationally and 6% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of
2007. The 23% age 75 and over is the fifth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish
communities.
vii
The number of children age 0-4 in Jewish households is lower than the number of children
age 5-9, which, in turn, is lower than the number of children age 10-14, which, in turn, is
lower than the number of persons age 15-19. This suggests a decreasing birth rate for
persons in Jewish households in Middlesex over the past 20 years.
Yet another indicator of a potential future decrease in Jewish population is that only 16%
of adult children (from households in which the respondent is age 50 or over) who have
established their own homes live in Middlesex, which is the fourth lowest of about 25
comparison Jewish communities.
Thus, planning should occur in an environment that assumes a slowly decreasing Jewish
population for the next few years. It may be that the rate of migration into the South, in
particular, will increase as baby boomers begin to retire and that this increase will offset
the expected decrease in population due to mortality. However, given the uncertainty about
the future, the size of the Jewish population should be monitored at regular intervals by
repeating the DJN Counting Project as soon as 2012.
Welcoming New Jewish Households to the Middlesex
Jewish Community and Identifying Existing Unknown
Jewish Households Is Important
An average of 523 Jewish households in Middlesex moved to Middlesex each year during
the past five years. Efforts should be made to identify new households and welcome them
to the Middlesex Jewish community. www.JewishMiddlesex.org should be expanded to
serve as a place for new residents and persons considering a move to Middlesex to report
their name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address. This information
should then be followed up personally by lay volunteers. Information about the community
and information from this study should be presented on the website so that potential
migrants to Middlesex will be attracted to the community and will be able to select a
neighborhood based on its Jewish demographics.
51% of the 24,000 Jewish households in Middlesex are on the Jewish Federation of
Greater Middlesex County’s mailing list, which is well below average among about 35
comparison Jewish communities. The low percentage of Jewish households on the Jewish
Federation's mailing list affects the ability of the Jewish Federation, other Jewish agencies,
local synagogues, and other Jewish organizations to communicate with and serve the
Jewish community. Potential additional Jewish households could be identified through the
use of a CD-ROM telephone directory and a list of Distinctive Jewish Names (DJNs). While
some of these households will turn out not to be Jewish, this can be sorted out on Super
Sunday. Although only 23% of households in residence in Middlesex for less than five
years donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year, the percentage increases to 46%
of households in residence for five or more years. Thus, the potential rewards from finding
new Jewish households as quickly as possible are significant.
A Significant Geographic Shift in the Location
of the Jewish Population Has Occurred
According to the Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) Counting Project, two geographic areas
in Middlesex–the North and Highland Park/South Edison–showed little change from 2000-
viii
2008 in the percentage of Jewish households living in those areas. The percentage of
Jewish households in the North decreased from 10% to 8%, and the percentage in
Highland Park/South Edison decreased from 9% to 7%.
In contrast, from 2000-2008, the percentage of Jewish households in the Central
decreased from 48% to 42%, and the percentage in the South increased from 33% to 43%.
The Jewish community should recognize this shift in the Jewish population toward the
South and away from the Central and, to a smaller degree, the North and Highland
Park/South Edison in the provision of services.
Consideration Should Be Given to the Extension of Services
and Programs to the South
The South contains 43% of the Jewish households in Middlesex, up from 33% in 2000. The
number of persons in Jewish households in the South increased from an estimated 16,300
persons in 2000 to 18,500 persons in 2008. In view of this shift in Jewish population,
consideration should be given to the extension of services and programs to the South.
In examining possible programs, the Jewish community should consider certain
demographic factors in the South. The median age of persons in Jewish households is 75
years, with only 6% of persons in Jewish households age 0-17 and 72% age 65 and over.
24% of households have lived at their current address for less than five years, and 16%
have lived in Middlesex for less than five years. The median household income in the
South is only $61,000. The area is 3% Orthodox, 42% Conservative, 31% Reform, and
24% Just Jewish, and 4% of married couples are intermarried. 48% of households are
synagogue members, and 50% reported having donated to the Jewish Federation of
Greater Middlesex County in the past year.
Monroe Township Is the Most Populous Area of Jewish Settlement
Monroe Township (zip code 08831), located in the South, is the most populous area of
Jewish settlement in Middlesex, containing 40% of the Jewish households. The 40% who
live in the top zip code area is the highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities.
The 66% who live in the top three zip code areas (08831, 08816 [East Brunswick], and
08857 [Old Bridge]) is the second highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities.
The existence of these areas of high geographic concentration should be considered in the
location of capital facilities and the provision of services to the Jewish community.
The Jewish Community Needs to Expand Its Procedures
to Track Jewish Households as They Move Within Middlesex
The Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County should keep a record of the origin and
destination zip codes of known Jewish households who move within Middlesex as address
changes are received from the post office. Doing so over a 3-5 year period will yield
significant data on intraregional migration at no cost. For the same reason, the Distinctive
Jewish Name (DJN) Counting Project should be repeated at regular intervals starting in
2012 to properly monitor the size and geographic distribution of the Jewish population. If
significant geographic shifts in the location of the Jewish population occur, the Jewish
community can respond with the provision of services and programs in new areas.
ix
Many Jews in Middlesex Have Significant Attachments
to New Jersey and the New York Metropolitan Area
82% of adults in Jewish households in Middlesex were born in New York or New Jersey.
47% of Jewish households have lived in Middlesex for 20 or more years. 35% of
households moved to Middlesex from elsewhere in New Jersey and 47% moved from New
York. 25% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have adult children
who have established their own homes in Middlesex and another 43%, within 90 minutes
of Middlesex, implying the existence of many multi-generational families spread across the
New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. 55% of respondents who are employed full time
or part time work mostly in Middlesex, while 30% work elsewhere in New Jersey and 13%
work in New York. In 18% of households in which the respondent or spouse (if any)
attended college, either one or both attended Rutgers-New Brunswick. Finally, 50% of
Jewish respondents reported that they feel very much or somewhat part of the Middlesex
Jewish community. These results argue for a community-building strategy which
recognizes that while many Jews feel a significant attachment to the local Jewish
community and its institutions, Middlesex is just a small part of a much larger metropolitan
area.
Significant Regional Variations Exist among the Geographic Areas:
* Issues of Jewish Continuity Are Most Important in the North
* Highland Park/South Edison Is an Enclave of Orthodox Jews
* The Central Contains Many Children
* The South Is a Retirement Community
Significant variations exist among Middlesex’s geographic areas in the geographic,
demographic, religious, membership, and philanthropy profiles of the Jewish population.
Both the geographic and demographic factors discussed below emphasize that the South
is a retirement community, and planning for this area should be different than it is for the
other geographic areas. Both the religious and membership profiles discussed below
emphasize that Jewish continuity is strongest in Highland Park/South Edison and weakest
in the North.
Geography. 19% of households in the South live in Middlesex for less than ten months of
the year, compared to 4%-6% in the other geographic areas. 16% of households in the
South moved to Middlesex within the past five years, compared to 9% in the Central, 4%
in Highland Park/South Edison, and 1% in the North. 24% of households in the South have
lived at their current address for less than five years, compared to 18% in the Central, 13%
in Highland Park/South Edison, and 7% in the North. 96% of households in the South own
their home, compared to 89% in the Central, 86% in Highland Park/South Edison, and 84%
in the North. Only 5% of households in the South will definitely or probably move within the
next three years, compared to 7% of households in Highland Park/South Edison, 20% of
households in the North, and 17% of households in the Central. Thus, as is typical in
retirement communities like the South, most residences are owned and most respondents
recognize that this is probably their final residence before the possibility of senior housing.
Demography. The percentage of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is much
higher in the South (72%) than in the North (26%), the Central (18%), and Highland
Park/South Edison (13%). The percentage of children age 0-17 in Jewish households is
x
much higher in Highland Park/South Edison (34%) than in the Central (23%), the North
(14%), and the South (6%). 64% of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in the
Central, and 66% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households live in the South.
The average household size is 3.35 persons in Highland Park/South Edison, compared to
2.76 persons in the Central, 2.25 persons in the North, and 1.82 persons in the South. 44%
of households in Highland Park/South Edison are households with children age 0-17 at
home, compared to 32% in the Central, 20% in the North, and 6% in the South. 74% of
adults in Jewish households in the South are retired, compared to 28% in the North, 22%
in the Central, and 19% in Highland Park/South Edison. Median household income is
highest in Highland Park/South Edison ($120,000), followed by the Central ($110,000) and
the North ($93,000), and is lowest in the South ($61,000).
Religiosity. The percentage of Jewish respondents who are Orthodox is overwhelmingly
higher in Highland Park/South Edison (49%) than in the other geographic areas (2%-5%).
The percentage of respondents who are Conservative is highest in the South (42%),
followed by the Central (30%) and the North (29%), and is lowest in Highland Park/South
Edison (24%). The percentage of respondents who are Just Jewish is highest in the North
(35%) and the Central (35%) and is lower in the South (24%) and Highland Park/South
Edison (18%). The percentage of married couples who are intermarried is much higher in
the North (38%) and the Central (20%) than in the South (4%) and Highland Park/South
Edison (2%).
Membership. Synagogue membership is highest in Highland Park/South Edison (76%) and
is much lower in the South (48%), the Central (38%), and the North (35%). Jewish
Community Center (JCC) membership in either the JCC of Middlesex County (Middlesex
JCC) or another JCC is much higher in the North (15%), where the Middlesex JCC is
located, than in the other geographic areas (1%-4%).
Philanthropy. The percentage of households who donated to the Jewish Federation of
Greater Middlesex County in the past year is higher in Highland Park/South Edison (65%)
and the South (50%) than in the Central (36%) and the North (28%).
Planning should occur with these regional variations in mind. The New Jersey Jewish
News should consider special half- to full-page sections that are oriented toward each of
the four geographic areas.
Middlesex Has a Relatively Low Percentage of Children
in Jewish Households Living with Adults Who Are or Were Divorced
The divorce rate of 57 divorced adults per 1,000 married adults in Jewish households in
Middlesex is the seventh lowest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. 19% of
children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in households in which an adult (not
necessarily the parent) is or was divorced, which is the third lowest of about 30 comparison
Jewish communities.
xi
While Significant Levels of Wealth Exist in the Middlesex
Jewish Community, Some Households Have Financial Concerns
The median household income of $90,000 for Jewish households in Middlesex is about
average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities, and the median household
income of $141,000 for households with children is the fourth highest of about 45
comparison Jewish communities. The 44% of households earning an annual income of
$100,000 and over is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities that
have completed studies since 2000 and compares to 35% of all households (both Jewish
and non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007 and 20% of all American households (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2007. The $372,000 median value of homes owned by
Jewish households is above average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities.
Thus, significant levels of wealth exist in the Middlesex Jewish community.
However, about 2,900 Jewish households are considered to be low income households
(earn an annual household income under $25,000), including 480 households (of whom
413 households are households with elderly persons) who live below the Federal poverty
levels. Two (overlapping) population groups with significant percentages of low income
households are households age 75 and over (30%) and elderly single households (33%).
19% of households in the South are low income households. In addition, 2% (408
households) of households (all of whom earn an annual income under $25,000) needed
financial assistance in the past year, and 11% (1,331 households) of households with
adults age 18-64 needed help in finding a job or choosing an occupation in the past year.
Thus, the Jewish community should be sensitive to its lower income members, while at the
same time recognizing the potential that exists for increased philanthropy from wealthier
households. Providing subsidies to low income households for Jewish identity-building
programs should be considered. (Note that the Telephone Survey was conducted in June
2008, prior to the significant downturn in the economy during 2008.)
Jewish Continuity Issues Are Different in Middlesex
Than in Most Other Jewish Communities
The issue of Jewish continuity in Middlesex is a complex one. On almost all measures of
“Jewishness,” Middlesex is one of the more “Jewish” of the Jewish communities in the
country. But, in many ways, this is a bifurcated community in which many households
maintain a significant degree of commitment to their Jewish identity while for others Jewish
identity is of lesser importance.
Among about 30-50 comparison Jewish communities, Middlesex has the second highest
percentage of households who always or usually light Chanukah candles (84%) and who
have a mezuzah on the front door (83%). It has the third highest percentage of
respondents who keep kosher in and out of the home (12%) and the fourth highest
percentage of households who keep a kosher home (23%). It has the fourth highest
percentage of respondents who refrain from using electricity on the Sabbath (6%). It has
the fifth highest percentage of households who always or usually participate in a Passover
Seder (83%) and an average percentage of households who always or usually light
Sabbath candles (25%). Middlesex has the second lowest percentage of households who
always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home (10%). Thus, the level
of religious observance in Middlesex is very high.
xii
The 14% of married couples who are intermarried is the second lowest of about 55
comparison Jewish communities. The 44% current synagogue membership is about
average among about 55 comparison Jewish communities, and the 83% lifetime
synagogue membership is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities.
The 38% Jewish organization membership is the seventh highest of about 40 comparison
Jewish communities.
The bifurcation in the Middlesex Jewish community is perhaps best illustrated by the
following: 25% of Jewish households age 35-49 keep a kosher home and 25% of Jewish
respondents age 35-49 attend synagogue services once per month or more, yet 27% of
married couples in households age 35-49 are intermarried and 22% of households age
35-49 always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home. While 96% of
households are involved Jewishly in some way (either through religious practice,
synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community, or Jewish
philanthropy), for many, the extent of involvement in Jewish activity is minimal. Thus,
efforts to engage Jewish households in Jewish life should take into account the significant
polarization in Jewish behavior that exists in Middlesex.
The North Is Different from Other Areas of Middlesex
with Respect to Jewish Continuity
The issue of Jewish continuity is of greater concern in the North than in the other
geographic areas of Middlesex. This is best illustrated by the following comparisons.
11% of households in the North always or usually light Sabbath candles, compared to 74%
in Highland Park/South Edison, 25% in the Central, and 20% in the South. 21% of
households in the North always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home,
compared to 16% in the Central, 4% in the South, and 3% in Highland Park/South Edison.
35% of Jewish respondents in the North never attend synagogue services, compared to
31% in the Central, 20% in the South, and 10% in Highland Park/South Edison and 38%
of married couples in the North are intermarried, compared to 20% in the Central, 4% in
the South, and 2% in Highland Park/South Edison. Thus, programs designed to enhance
Jewish identity should be emphasized in the North.
The Intermarriage Rate Is the Second Lowest
among the Comparison Jewish Communities,
but Is Still a Concern among Younger Couples
The 14% of married couples who are intermarried (the couples intermarriage rate) in
Middlesex is the second lowest of about 55 comparison Jewish communities. However, as
is true in almost all the comparison Jewish communities, the trend in Middlesex is for
higher rates of intermarriage among younger couples. The couples intermarriage rate
decreases from 26% in households under age 35 and 27% in households age 35-49 to
15% in households age 50-64 and 4% in households age 65 and over. Among about 40-45
comparison Jewish communities, the 26% couples intermarriage rate in households under
age 35 is the fourth lowest, the 27% rate in households age 35-49 is the seventh lowest,
the 15% rate in households age 50-64 is the fifth lowest, and the 5% rate in households
age 65 and over is the fourth lowest. Thus, while the intermarriage rate among younger
couples is still lower in Middlesex than in most comparison Jewish communities,
intermarriage is still a concern among younger couples.
xiii
Integrating Intermarried Couples
into the Middlesex Jewish Community Is Important
While some intermarried couples contribute significantly to the Middlesex Jewish
community, intermarriage clearly affects Jewish continuity. Levels of religious practice and
other involvement in Jewish activity are particularly low in intermarried households. While
99% of in-married households are involved Jewishly in some way, only 85% of intermarried
households are, and while many intermarried couples have at least some Jewish activity
present in their household, on individual measures intermarried households are generally
much less Jewishly-connected than in-married households.
For example, 51% of in-married households are synagogue members, compared to only
16% of intermarried households, and 42% of in-married households are Jewish
organization members, compared to only 5% of intermarried households. 51% of
in-married households donated to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County in
the past year, compared to just 13% of intermarried households.
Of Jewish children age 0-17 being raised in married households in Middlesex, 9% are
being raised in intermarried households and 4% are being raised in conversionary inmarried households. In intermarried households, only 33% of children are being raised
Jewish, which is below average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities. 22%
of households with children always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the
home. Welcoming Jewish children who are being raised in intermarried and conversionary
in-married households (and who have non-Jewish grandparents, aunts, uncles, and
cousins) into the Middlesex Jewish community, while at the same time developing
programs to encourage Jews to marry other Jews, represents a significant challenge.
Only 20% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households feel very much or somewhat
part of the Middlesex Jewish community, compared to 57% of respondents in in-married
households. The importance of integrating intermarried households into the Middlesex
Jewish community and encouraging them to lead a Jewish life, whether for the benefit of
the Jewish children being raised in these households or for the potential to influence
intermarried households to raise their children Jewishly, should not be minimized.
Integrating intermarried households into the Jewish community would lead to greater
support for Jewish institutions, increased Jewish philanthropy, and stronger ethnic
attachments and identity. Jewish identity initiatives must carefully balance “outreach” to the
intermarried population with “inreach” to moderately affiliated Jews. Each synagogue and
Jewish organization needs to develop its own policies and programs for grappling with the
issue of intermarriage. Programs to engage intermarried households in Jewish life and
adult education programs for intermarried couples are probably best offered from the more
neutral environment afforded by a Jewish Community Center.
xiv
A Coordinated Effort Should Be Considered to Increase
Synagogue Membership
Recognizing the importance of synagogues in promoting increased involvement in Jewish
philanthropy, volunteerism, and other positive measures of Jewish identity, a coordinated
effort to increase synagogue membership in Middlesex should be considered. The 44%
of Jewish households who reported current synagogue membership is about average
among about 55 comparison Jewish communities.
The 44% current synagogue membership of households under age 35 is the fifth highest
of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. Synagogue membership of households age
35-49 (44%) and age 65 and over (49%) is about average and synagogue membership of
households age 50-64 (37%) is well below average among about 45 comparison Jewish
communities. The 53% current synagogue membership of households with children is
about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities. Yet, the potential still
exists for increased synagogue membership across all segments of the community.
Current synagogue membership is low among households in residence in Middlesex for
0-4 years (30%), non-elderly couple households (30%), non-elderly single households
(14%), Just Jewish households (16%), intermarried households (16%), Jewish organization
non-member households (30%), households in which no adult attended Jewish education
as a child (28%), households in which no adult visited Israel (29%), households who were
not asked to donate to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County in the past year
(26%), and households who did not donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year
(29%).
Attracting unaffiliated groups of Jews to synagogues in Middlesex can best be addressed
through a coordinated, community-wide effort. The fact that 21% of synagogue nonmember households plan to join a synagogue in the future suggests that significant
success could accrue from such efforts.
Income Is a Factor in Synagogue Membership
The strong relationship between household income and synagogue membership suggests
that cost may be an important reason why more Jewish households in Middlesex are not
synagogue members. Synagogue membership increases from 34% of households earning
an annual income of $25,000-$50,000 to 40% of households earning $50,000-$100,000,
47% of households earning $100,000-$200,000, and 54% of households earning $200,000
and over.
At odds with this trend is the high synagogue membership among households earning
under $25,000 (45%). The fact that 88% of households earning under $25,000 are age 65
and over may help to explain this anomaly.
Among other things, the Middlesex Jewish community should consider offering discounts
for joint synagogue and Jewish Community Center (JCC) membership as a way of
encouraging membership in both institutions if and when a new JCC is in operation. Also,
synagogues should examine their dues structures to determine financial strategies to
increase membership while sustaining services.
xv
JCC Membership in Middlesex Is Very Low
Compared to Other Jewish Communities, and the Jewish Federation
Needs to Consider an Effort to Build the Type of Jewish Campus
That Exists in Many Jewish Communities, or Alternatively, to Find a
Central Location from Which Community-Wide Events Can Be Staged
During the past few years, the YMCA moved onto the campus of the Jewish Community
Center of Middlesex County in Edison (Middlesex JCC). The YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley
(YM-YWHA) in Highland Park ceased to operate except for a preschool, a day camp, and
some senior programming. The YM-YWHA recently changed its name to the Campus for
Jewish Life and a capital campaign has started for a new campus for this institution at the
YM-YWHA day camp site in East Brunswick. (Note that the YM-YWHA is treated as a JCC
for comparative purposes by this study.)
2% of Jewish households in Middlesex reported that they are current members of the
Middlesex JCC, which is the third lowest of about 50 comparison JCCs. The 2% of
households with children who are members of the Middlesex JCC is the second lowest of
about 45 comparison JCCs. 7% of respondents reported that someone in their household
participated in or attended a program at, or sponsored by, the Middlesex JCC in the past
year, which is the second lowest of about 45 comparison JCCs. The 5% of households
who participated in or attended a Middlesex JCC program in the past year without being
a member of the Middlesex JCC is the fourth lowest of about 45 comparison JCCs and
suggests a lack of interest in the JCC among non-member households.
The low levels of familiarity with, and the weak perceptions of, the Middlesex JCC and the
YM-YWHA may help to explain the low JCC membership levels in Middlesex. The 4% of
respondents who are very familiar with the Middlesex JCC is the lowest of about 40
comparison JCCs and the 7% who are very familiar with the YM-YWHA is the fourth
lowest. 16% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Middlesex
JCC perceive it as excellent, which is the fourth lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs and
the lowest of any comparison JCC with a full-service facility. 12% of respondents who are
very familiar or somewhat familiar with the YM-YWHA perceive it as excellent, which is the
second lowest of the comparison JCCs. The 26% fair and poor perceptions of both the
Middlesex JCC and YM-YWHA is the second highest of the comparison JCCs.
The major reason for not joining the Middlesex JCC most commonly reported by
respondents in non-member households is no need for the services offered (40%). The
40% is about average among about 40 comparison JCCs. The 6% of respondents who
reported cost as the major reason is the third lowest of the comparison JCCs, indicating
that cost does not seem to be a major impediment to membership.
But the 29% of respondents who reported distance from home as the major reason for not
joining the Middlesex JCC is the fourth highest of the comparison JCCs, emphasizing that
the location of the current facility is an issue. The JCC is located in the northern part of zip
code 08820 (Edison), which lies in the far northern end of Middlesex, and only 8% of
Jewish households in Middlesex live in the North. Membership in the Middlesex JCC is
much higher in the North (13%) than in the other geographic areas (1%-3%). If a JCC
facility were centrally located and could attract even 10% of all Middlesex Jewish
households, membership would likely be sufficient to sustain its activities.
xvi
31% of households who are not members of the Middlesex JCC are current members of
another fitness facility or health club. The JCC’s market share of the health club and fitness
facility market among Jewish households is only 6%, which is the second lowest of about
25 comparison JCCs, suggesting that Jewish households in Middlesex have a preference
for other fitness facilities over the Middlesex JCC.
Respondents were asked: “If a new YM-YWHA were built in East Brunswick, would you
definitely, probably, probably not, or definitely not seriously investigate joining the new Y?”
In this question respondents are asked about prospective behavior, and in examining the
results it should be noted that some respondents have difficulty projecting their behavior
and that unforeseen events may alter projected behavior. However, in the aggregate, the
results are indicative of the community’s propensity to investigate joining a new Y. The
study specifically did not ask about the likelihood that a household would join a new Y, only
the likelihood that the household would seriously investigate joining a new Y. 12% (2,880
households) of households would definitely seriously investigate joining a new Y;
24% (5,856 households), probably; 33%, probably not; 28%, definitely not; and 3% don’t
know. In total, 36% (8,736 households) of households would definitely or probably
seriously investigate joining a new Y.
It should be noted that 15% (3,576 households) of Jewish households were members of
the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley in the past. 51% of past members of the YM-YWHA would
definitely or probably seriously investigate joining a new Y located in East Brunswick.
According to the JCC Survey, 1,000 Jewish households who live in Middlesex (4%) are
members of the Middlesex JCC. Thus, the Telephone Survey implies that local JCC
membership is 2 percentage points lower than that suggested by the JCC Survey. This
disparity could be attributable to the inclusion in the 2008 data from the JCC Survey of
households who are members of the “campus” on which both the Middlesex JCC and
YMCA are located. It likely also explains why the Middlesex JCC shows an increase in
membership from 300 Jewish households in 2000 to 1,000 Jewish households in 2008.
Effective marketing of the Middlesex JCC, or another more centrally located facility, in an
attempt to increase membership would need to address five main points: ì a perception
on the part of many non-members that they have no need for the services offered,
í a preference on the part of Jewish households for other fitness facilities, î the
significant distance to the current JCC facility for most households in Middlesex, ï the low
levels of familiarity with the Middlesex JCC and the YM-YWHA, and ð low overall
perceptions of the Middlesex JCC and YM-YWHA.
Moreover, the community needs to consider the best model to deliver community-wide
events and JCC-type activities. The current model is clearly not as effective as the models
used in other Jewish communities. Only one JCC is needed, although it might offer
activities from multiple locations that serve different geographic areas. A merger of the
Middlesex JCC and the new Campus for Jewish Life should be explored. The community
should then consider a location in the Central, with a branch in the North and another in
the South.
xvii
JCCs and Synagogues Are Not Competing Institutions
Across American Jewish communities, it has been claimed that significant numbers of
Jewish households join a Jewish Community Center (JCC) instead of a synagogue. Yet,
the results for most of the comparison Jewish communities show that such is not the case.
(Since only 3% of households in Middlesex are JCC members, the Middlesex results are
not useful for this discussion.) In 32 of about 45 comparison JCCs, the percentage of
Jewish households who are JCC members but are not synagogue members is 5% or less,
and in only one community is the percentage as high as 10%. In Middlesex, 55% of
households are neither synagogue nor JCC members.
As plans go forward with a new model for offering community-wide events and JCC-type
activities, synagogues and JCCs should recognize that the services they offer more often
complement one another than compete. Synagogues and JCCs should coordinate efforts
to encourage membership in both institutions, perhaps by offering discounts for joint
synagogue and JCC membership.
Multiple Entry Points to the Middlesex Jewish Community
Need to Be Marketed
The organized Jewish community in Middlesex needs to market the many different ways
to “be Jewish” to those who are unaffiliated or only marginally involved. Most Jews who are
unaffiliated or marginally involved view Judaism only in terms of synagogue life and
religious practice. The ethnic, historical, social, and cultural connections to Judaism should
also be emphasized. Adult Jewish education programs and classes, already attended by
28% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex in the past year, as well as Jewish cultural and
social events and programs, may attract some unaffiliated Jews. 37% of Jewish
respondents attended a theater, music, or dance program in the past year because it had
Jewish content, and such cultural activities may be attractive to other Jews. Emphasis on
tikkun olam and social action programs may attract others, and Israel-oriented
programming may attract still others.
Jewish organizations other than synagogues and Jewish Community Centers (JCCs), such
as Hadassah and B’nai B’rith, often provide relatively inexpensive ways for Jews to
become involved in Jewish life. In Middlesex, 38% of Jewish households reported current
membership in a Jewish organization (other than a synagogue or JCC), which is the
seventh highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. The organized Jewish
community should recognize these types of organizations as good vehicles for involving
Jews with specific interests for whom cost of membership is an obstacle and encourage
participation in them.
Attendance in Formal Jewish Education Programs as Children
Shows Strong Positive Correlations with Jewish Behavior as Adults
This study confirms the results of many other Jewish community studies that show strong
positive correlations between formal Jewish education (Jewish day school and
supplemental school) as children and Jewish behavior as adults, although we cannot
attribute cause and effect to these relationships. In general, on most measures of
“Jewishness” (such as religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership in the
organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy and volunteerism), formal Jewish
xviii
education as children is positively correlated with adult Jewish behavior. For example, 73%
of Jewish households in Middlesex in which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a
child and 43% of households in which an adult attended a supplemental school as a child
are synagogue members, compared to 28% of households in which no adult attended
formal Jewish education as a child. As another example, 94% of married households in
which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a child and 84% of married households
in which an adult attended a supplemental school as a child are in-married, compared to
63% of married households in which no adult attended formal Jewish education as a child.
This argues that to build for the future and help preserve Jewish identity and continuity, the
Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County should continue to support Jewish day
schools and should consider extending additional support to supplemental schools, which,
according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, are attended by the vast majority of
Middlesex's Jewish children age 5-12 who are involved in formal Jewish education.
66% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the
past year consider providing Jewish education for children to be a very important
motivation in their decision to donate to a Jewish organization, which is about average
among about 20 comparison Jewish communities. Donors need to be made aware of the
results of this and other Jewish community studies that show the strong correlation
between formal Jewish education as children and Jewish behavior as adults in an effort
to increase philanthropic support for providing Jewish education for children.
Attendance in Informal Jewish Education Programs as Children
Shows Strong Positive Correlations with Jewish Behavior as Adults
This study confirms the results of many other Jewish community studies that show strong
positive correlations between informal Jewish education (specifically Jewish sleep away
camp, Jewish teenage youth group, and college Hillel/Chabad) as children/teenagers and
Jewish behavior as adults, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these
relationships. In general, on most measures of “Jewishness” (such as religious practice,
synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community, and Jewish
philanthropy and volunteerism), informal Jewish education as children is positively
correlated with adult Jewish behavior. For example, 94% of married Jewish households in
Middlesex in which an adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college (excluding the
High Holidays) are in-married, compared to 78% of married households in which no adult
participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college. This argues that to build for the future and
to preserve Jewish identity and continuity, the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex
County should support programs that provide assistance to these types of informal Jewish
education.
Adult Jewish Education Programs Should Be Expanded,
Particularly for Women
The 74% of born or raised Jewish adults in Middlesex who received some formal Jewish
education as children is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities.
However, the difference in Jewish education levels between males and females in this
community is very wide: 89% of born or raised Jewish adult males received some formal
Jewish education as children, compared to only 61% of born or raised Jewish adult
xix
females. The difference exists in every age group and widens at age 50 and over. In the
past year, 29% of female respondents attended an adult Jewish education program or
class, compared to 24% of male respondents. This suggests that adult Jewish education
programs or classes directed at women may have a potentially larger market.
Increasing Jewish Day School Enrollment Means Competing
with the Public Schools, Not Non-Jewish Private Schools
Unlike in many Jewish communities, but as seen in Bergen and Monmouth, the major
competition for the Jewish day schools in Middlesex are the public schools, not the nonJewish private schools. 86% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-17 attend a public
school, 13% attend a Jewish day school, and 1% attend a non-Jewish private school.
Thus, 91% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-17 who go to private school attend a
Jewish day school. This means that the major competition for a good education in
Middlesex is the free public school system. Respondents in households with Jewish
children age 0-17 (none of whom currently attend a Jewish day school, have attended in
the past, or will definitely attend in the future) were asked the major reasons they did not,
will not, or might not send their Jewish children to a Jewish day school. 42% of
respondents reported tuition cost as a major reason, and 36% reported a belief in public
schools. This makes the goal of increasing Jewish day school enrollment in Middlesex
more difficult to achieve.
The Levels of Familiarity with, and the Perceptions of,
the Jewish Agencies and Jewish Day Schools in Middlesex Are Low
Compared to other Jewish communities, a significant portion of the Middlesex Jewish
community is not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County
and other Jewish agencies, ranging from the 45% of respondents who are not at all familiar
with the Jewish Federation to the 76% who are not at all familiar with the Jewish
Community Center of Middlesex County (Middlesex JCC).
Compared to about 35 comparison Jewish communities, the 15% of respondents who are
very familiar with the Jewish Federation is below average and the 8% who are very familiar
with the Jewish Family and Vocational Service (JFVS) is the fifth lowest. Compared to
about 40 comparison JCCs, the 7% of respondents who are very familiar with the YMYWHA of Raritan Valley (YM-YWHA) is the fourth lowest and the 4% who are very familiar
with the Middlesex JCC is the lowest.
Compared to about 45 comparison Jewish day schools, the 23% of respondents in
households with Jewish children age 0-17 who are very familiar with the Solomon
Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley (Schechter) and the 22% who are very familiar with
the Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva (RPRY) are about average, while the 13% who are
very familiar with the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School (MAYHS) is well below average.
The majority (74%-87%) of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with
the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies (and were able to provide a perception)
have positive (excellent and good) perceptions of them. However, compared to other
Jewish communities, the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies are not as well
perceived by the Middlesex Jewish community.
xx
Of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with each agency, the 23% who
perceive the Jewish Federation as excellent is below average and the 24% who perceive
the JFVS as excellent is the third lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities. The
12% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the YM-YWHA and
perceive it as excellent is the second lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs, and the 16%
who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Middlesex JCC and perceive it as
excellent is the fourth lowest.
Of respondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 who are very familiar or
somewhat familiar with each Jewish day school, the 17% who perceive Schechter as
excellent is the fifth lowest of about 40 comparison Jewish day schools, the 18% who
perceive RPRY as excellent is the seventh lowest, and the 11% who perceive MAYHS as
excellent is the lowest.
The Jewish Federation should consider a coordinated marketing campaign to enhance the
visibility and improve the perception of the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies,
including the Jewish day schools, which could lead to increased usage of agency services,
higher Jewish day school enrollment, and greater participation in the Annual Campaign.
A marketing campaign should take advantage of the significant geographic clustering of
the Jewish population, with 66% of Jewish households residing in just three zip codes
areas. The use of billboards on heavily traveled routes should be considered along with
targeted mailings to all households in zip codes areas with a high number of Jewish
households.
A Relatively High Percentage of Middlesex’s Jewish Population
Is Health Limited
21% (5,016 households) of Jewish households in Middlesex contain an adult member or
a Jewish or part Jewish child who has a physical, mental, or other health condition that has
lasted for six months or more and limits or prevents employment, educational opportunities,
or daily activities. Included in the 21% are 7% (1,752 households) of households in which
the member needs daily assistance as a result of this condition. The 21% is the fourth
highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. 27% of elderly couple households
and 28% of elderly single households are health limited. Thus, health issues are an
important concern in the Middlesex Jewish community, particularly in the South, where
26% of households contain a health-limited member, and among elderly households.
The Needs of the Elderly Must Remain a Focus
Middlesex is a Jewish community with a significant number of retirees, and elderly needs
must continue to be a focus of service provision. Compared to about 50 comparison
Jewish communities, the 36% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is the
seventh highest and the 20,319 persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is well
above average. The 23% of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households is the fifth
highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities. 27% of elderly couple households
and 28% of elderly single households are health limited. As the population age 75 and over
increases, a higher demand for elderly social services can be expected. Many elderly
households contain single persons (mostly female) who are widowed. 24% of persons age
65 and over in Jewish households (29% of persons age 75 and over) live alone. Elderly
xxi
persons living alone are generally more likely to need social services than other
households.
Services for the Elderly Should Be Concentrated in the South
66% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households in Middlesex live in the South;
24%, in the Central; 6%, in the North; and 4%, in Highland Park/South Edison. 72% of
persons in Jewish households in the South are age 65 and over, compared to 26% in the
North, 18% in the Central, and 13% in Highland Park/South Edison. The median age of
persons in Jewish households in the South is 75 years. In addition, 26% of households in
the South contain a health-limited member, compared to 11%-18% in the other geographic
areas. Thus, services for the elderly should be concentrated in the South.
In-Home Health Care and Senior Transportation
Are the Two Most Needed Social Services among the Elderly,
but Most Elderly Needs Are Being Met
14% of Jewish households with elderly persons in Middlesex needed in-home health care
in the past year, and 13% needed senior transportation. 3%-4% of households with elderly
persons needed other social services for the elderly (home-delivered meals, adult day
care, nursing home care, and assisted living facility) in the past year. No more than 1% of
households with elderly persons reported unmet needs for any of the six elderly services
queried.
It should be noted, however, that virtually all of the needs for elderly services, with the
exception of home-delivered meals, are being met outside the Jewish community. For
example, 12% of households with elderly persons received senior transportation in the past
year; 11% received it from non-Jewish sources and 1% received it from Jewish sources.
The Middlesex Jewish community should address the need for the provision of in-home
health care and senior transportation, but, given limited resources, should balance these
needs (which are mostly being met) with needs in other areas.
The Need for Help in Coordinating Services
for an Elderly or Disabled Person Is Particularly High in Middlesex
Among about 20 comparison Jewish communities, Middlesex has the second highest
percentage of households (17%) who needed help in coordinating services for an elderly
or disabled person in the past year. This is probably due, in large part, to the high
percentage of elderly persons in Jewish households (36%) in the community and the high
percentage of elderly couple (27%) and elderly single (28%) households containing a
health-limited member.
Additionally, 24% of households with children in which the respondent is age 40 or over are
caregiver households, which is the second highest of about 20 comparison Jewish
communities. The adults in these households, who have been called the sandwich
generation, have the responsibility to care for both minor children at home and elderly
relatives who live outside their home and are more likely to need help in coordinating
services for an elderly person.
The Jewish Family and Vocational Service should consider expanding services in this area
to better meet the needs of the community.
xxii
The Jewish Community Should Look to Partner with Other Public
and Private Entities in Providing Services to the Elderly
21% of persons age 65 and over (27% of persons age 75 and over) in Middlesex live in
Jewish households. Agencies such as the United Way, local hospitals, and other social
service providers should be made aware of this so that arrangements can be made
whereby the Jewish community can partner with such social service providers to
incorporate Jewish content into otherwise secular programs and to provide volunteers from
the Jewish community to other social service agencies.
The Connection Between the Middlesex Jewish Community and Israel
Is One of the Strongest of Any Jewish Community
Almost 400 adults in Jewish households in Middlesex were born in Israel. The 54% of
Jewish households in which a member visited Israel is well above average among about
35 comparison Jewish communities. The 18% of households with Jewish children age 0-17
who have sent a Jewish child on a trip to Israel is the fifth highest of about 40 comparison
Jewish communities.
The 58% of Jewish respondents who are extremely or very emotionally attached to Israel
is the third highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities. Of respondents in Jewish
households who donated $100 and over to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex
County, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the past year, the 67% who
consider supporting the people of Israel and the 41% who consider supporting educational
trips to Israel to be very important motivations in their decision to donate to a Jewish
organization are both the third highest of about 20 comparison Jewish communities. The
in the past year who would donate more to the Jewish Federation if more of the money
went to needs in Israel and overseas is above average among about 20 comparison
Jewish communities.
Thus, the significant connection to Israel should be considered in programming for the
Jewish community and in fund raising efforts. Israel programming and emphasis on the role
of the Jewish Federation in support of Israel should be well received in Middlesex.
Organized Programs to Israel Should Continue to Be Supported
On most measures of “Jewishness” (such as religious practice, synagogue attendance,
membership in the organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy and
volunteerism), this study shows a significant positive correlation with visits to Israel,
particularly if the Israel trip was sponsored by a Jewish organization, although we cannot
attribute cause and effect to these relationships. For example, 24% of households in
Middlesex in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 17% of households in which
an adult visited Israel on a general trip donated $100 and over to the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County in the past year, compared to 6% of households in which no
adult visited Israel.
Likewise, trips to Israel are positively correlated with emotional attachment to Israel. 77%
of Jewish respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel are extremely or very
emotionally attached to Israel, compared to only 37% of respondents in households in
xxiii
which no adult visited Israel. 41% of households who donated $100 and over to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish
Charities in the past year consider supporting educational trips to Israel to be a very
important motivation in their decision to donate to a Jewish organization, which is the third
highest of about 20 comparison Jewish communities.
Trips to Israel, particularly for teenagers and young adults, should continue to be promoted
and supported by the organized Jewish community in order to capitalize on the
transforming experience that a trip to Israel can offer. Trips to Israel are shown to foster
and enhance emotional attachment to Israel. Organized programs should be considered
that bring together emotionally attached participants who have visited Israel in the past with
less involved Jews.
Anti-Semitism Is Not the Issue It Once Was, but Is Still a Concern
Personal experience with anti-Semitism and perceptions of anti-Semitism in Middlesex are
relatively low. 8% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex personally experienced antiSemitism in the local community in the past year. The 8% is the second lowest of about
35 comparison Jewish communities. 13% of households with Jewish children age 6-17
reported that a child experienced anti-Semitism in the local community (mainly at school)
in the past year. The 13% is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities. Despite the community's relatively low level of experience with anti-Semitism
locally in the past year, 31% of respondents perceive that a great deal or moderate amount
of anti-Semitism exists in Middlesex. The 31% is the fifth lowest of about 35 comparison
Jewish communities.
of Greater Middlesex County, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the
past year consider combating anti-Semitism to be a very important motivation to donate
to a Jewish organization, which is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish
communities. However, of eight philanthropic motivations queried in Middlesex, the 67%
of respondents who consider combating anti-Semitism to be very important is tied for the
highest percentage. Perhaps this is due to the recent reports of increasing anti-Semitism
around the world.
Both the Internet and the New Jersey Jewish News Should Be Used
to Communicate with the Jewish Community
The Internet has become an important and effective medium for communication and
education in the Jewish community. The 48% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex who
used the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past year is above average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities. Included in the 48% are 17% of respondents
who used the Internet for information about the Middlesex Jewish community, which is
below average among about 15 comparison Jewish communities. Included in the 17% are
8% of respondents who visited the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County web
site, which is about average among about 15 comparison Jewish communities. Younger
respondents were more likely to use the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past
year than were older respondents: usage decreases from 66% of respondents under age
50 to 61% of respondents age 50-64, 45% of respondents age 65-74, and 26% of
respondents age 75 and over.
xxiv
The New Jersey Jewish News is always or usually read by 37% of respondents, which is
about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities. Readership increases
significantly with age, from 8% of respondents under age 35 to 20% of respondents age
35-49, 32% of respondents age 50-64, 42% of respondents age 65-74, and 51% of
respondents age 75 and over.
Thus, communicating with younger residents is more effective through the Internet, while
communicating with older residents is more effective via the Jewish newspaper.
Efforts Are Needed to Increase the Visibility of the Jewish Federation
and to Involve More People in the Annual Campaign
Reflecting the large number of Jewish households that are unknown to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County, only 51% of the 24,000 Jewish households in
Middlesex are on the Jewish Federation’s mailing list. The 51% is well below average
among about 35 comparison Jewish communities. 47% of households reported that they
were not asked to donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year, which is about average
among about 40 comparison Jewish communities. 46% of households who were not asked
to donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year did donate to Other Jewish Charities
(Jewish Charities other than Jewish Federations), and 72% donated to Non-Jewish
charities. Of households asked to donate, the 17% who did not donate is about average
among the comparison Jewish communities.
Yet, 57% of households who declined to donate to the Jewish Federation when asked in
the past year did donate to Other Jewish Charities, and 85% donated to Non-Jewish
Charities.
In addition, 15% of respondents in Jewish households in Middlesex are very familiar, 40%
are somewhat familiar, and 45% are not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation. The 15%
very familiar is below average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities, and the
45% not at all familiar is above average. The 23% of respondents (very familiar or
somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation) who perceive the Jewish Federation as
excellent is below average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities. Thus, the
overall level of familiarity with, and perceptions of, the Jewish Federation are low.
Efforts should be made to reach Jewish households who are not on the Jewish
Federation’s mailing list and to raise the profile of the Jewish Federation. Strategies should
be developed to increase the involvement of those segments of the population who are
currently under represented in the Annual Campaign, including, among others, households
in the North, households in residence in Middlesex for 0-4 years, households with children
and non-elderly single households, Just Jewish households, and intermarried households.
In the South, large numbers of Jews age 65 and over reside in elderly retirement
communities. The Jewish Federation should investigate the methods for soliciting
participation in the Annual Campaign that are used in such residences by Jewish
Federations in Florida.
xxv
Young People Are Much Less Likely to Be Involved
in Jewish Philanthropic Giving in Middlesex
As in most Jewish communities, a disproportionate share of donations to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County Annual Campaign derive from elderly households.
While 51% of all Jewish households in Middlesex are age 65 and over, 66% of households
who donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year are age 65 and over. While 21%
of all Jewish households in Middlesex are under age 50, only 12% of households who
donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year are under age 50.
In total, 28% of households under age 35 and 24% of households age 35-49 donated to
the Jewish Federation in the past year, compared to 36% of households age 50-64, 47%
of households age 65-74, and 60% of households age 75 and over. 69% of households
under age 35 and 67% of households age 35-49 were not asked to donate, compared to
only 52% of households age 50-64 and 37% of households age 65 and over.
In addition, 63% of respondents under age 35 and 55% of respondents age 35-49 in
Jewish households in Middlesex are not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation,
compared to 44% of respondents age 50-64 and 40% of respondents age 65 and over.
The problem of lower philanthropic giving by the young extends to donations to all Jewish
charities (Jewish Federations and Other Jewish Charities). While 63% of non-elderly
households in Middlesex donated to Jewish charities in the past year, 82% of elderly
households donated.
Moreover, like in other Jewish communities, charitable giving to Non-Jewish Charities takes
preference to giving to Jewish Charities among younger households in Middlesex. While
62% of Jewish households age 35-49 donated to Jewish Charities in the past year, 81%
donated to Non-Jewish Charities. While 63% of households age 50-64 donated to Jewish
Charities in the past year, 80% donated to non-Jewish charities. By way of contrast, 82%
of households age 65 and over donated to Jewish charities in the past year, and 81%
donated to non-Jewish charities. Thus, while younger households do donate to charities,
many apparently do not give preference to Jewish Charities. Strategies should be
developed to attract more young people to Jewish philanthropic giving.
Significant Emphasis on Endowment Giving Is Warranted
in Middlesex
Since philanthropic giving among older Jews in Middlesex is high, and 55% of Jewish
respondents age 65 and over feel very much or somewhat part of the Middlesex Jewish
community, opportunities exist for significantly increasing endowment giving.
82% of Jewish households age 65 and over in Middlesex donated to Jewish charities in the
past year. 15% of households age 65 and over donated $100 and over to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County in the past year, and 30% donated $100 and over
to Other Jewish Charities (Jewish charities other than Jewish Federations). 2% of
households age 65 and over donated $1,000 and over to the Jewish Federation in the past
year, and 4% donated $1,000 and over to Other Jewish Charities. Importantly, 21% of
households age 65 and over earn an annual income of $100,000 and over.
xxvi
9% of respondents age 65 and over in Middlesex do not have wills; 84% have wills that
contain no charitable provisions; 5% have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities;
and 2% have wills that contain provisions for Non-Jewish Charities only. The Jewish
Federation should capitalize on the proclivity of the elderly to donate to Jewish charities.
Emphasis should be placed on enhancing programs which communicate the opportunities
for, and advantages of, endowment giving.
The Jewish Federation Should Encourage Volunteerism
in the Jewish Community
26% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past
year, and 29% volunteered for non-Jewish organizations. Among about 25 comparison
Jewish communities, the 26% who volunteered for Jewish organizations is about average,
while the 29% who volunteered for non-Jewish organizations is the third lowest. 17% of
respondents volunteered for non-Jewish organizations in the past year but not for Jewish
organizations. Among about 50 comparison Jewish communities, Middlesex has the
seventh highest percentage of adults in Jewish households who are retired (41%). These
retirees can serve as a significant resource to the volunteer community. The Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County should better promote volunteer opportunities,
particularly within the Jewish community.
The Annual Campaign of the Jewish Federation Should Be Oriented
Toward the Motivations for Giving Identified by the Study
Respondents in Jewish households in Middlesex who donated $100 and over to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish
Charities in the past year were asked how important each of eight motivations is in their
decision to donate to a Jewish organization. While all the motivations queried are at least
somewhat important to the vast majority of respondents, clear distinctions do exist in the
levels of importance respondents ascribe to each. 66%-67% of respondents reported that
providing social services for the Jewish elderly, supporting the people of Israel, combating
anti-Semitism, and providing Jewish education for children are very important motivations
to donate to a Jewish organization. 54% of respondents reported that helping Jews
overseas who are in distress is a very important motivation; 46%, providing individual and
family counseling for Jews; 41%, supporting educational trips to Israel; and 38%, providing
social, recreational, and cultural activities for Jews.
in the past year reported that they would increase their donations if more of the money
went to Israel and overseas, and 33% would increase their donations if more of the money
went to local needs. Unlike in most comparison Jewish communities, in Middlesex the
percentage of respondents who would increase their donations if more of the money went
to local needs is not much higher than the percentage who would increase their donations
if more of the money went to needs in Israel and overseas. Campaign publicity must
carefully balance these contrasting priorities.
in the past year would increase their donations if they were asked by a close friend; 27%,
if they had more say over how the money was spent; 22%, if they were asked in person;
and only 1%, if they received more recognition for the donation.
xxvii
Marketing efforts that are oriented toward the community’s motivations for giving and that
address the circumstances under which donors might increase their level of giving may
lead to a more successful campaign.
Avenues for Cooperation with Other New Jersey Jewish Federations
Should Be Explored
New Jersey has more Jewish Federations than any other state. Jewish community studies
have been completed in Bergen, Monmouth, Atlantic and Cape May, and MetroWest
(Essex, Morris, Sussex, and northern Union Counties). Comparisons between Middlesex
and the other New Jersey communities shown in the Main Report (with the exception of
MetroWest, whose study does not readily facilitate comparisons in many cases) suggest
certain commonalities among the communities. A few examples follow. First, Middlesex,
like Bergen, MetroWest, and Monmouth, operates in an environment which lies in the
“shadow” of New York City. The Jewish community is not watching local television
channels and is much less likely to read the local secular newspapers. Thus, local media
cannot be utilized to reach the Jewish population to the same extent that it can in
communities that are differently situated. Second, Middlesex, like Bergen and Monmouth,
has a significant Orthodox population. Third, Middlesex, like Atlantic and Cape May, has
a significant retirement population. Fourth, Middlesex, like Monmouth and Bergen, has high
levels of religious observance, but low levels of familiarity with local Jewish institutions.
The Jewish population of Middlesex has significant attachments to other parts of New
Jersey, as discussed in an earlier theme, with respect to place of birth, location of previous
residence, location of adult children, and place of employment. Discussions with other New
Jersey Jewish Federations with regard to Annual Campaign marketing efforts, program
initiatives, coordinating speakers and films at book fairs and film festivals etc. may well
prove fruitful.
Unlike in Many Other Jewish Communities, the Jewish Federation
Is Not the Major Jewish Fund Raising Organization
Adjusted for inflation, the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County Annual
Campaign decreased by $778,820 (24%) since 2000. Adjusted for inflation, the average
donation per Jewish household in the community decreased by $14 (12%), from $116 in
2000 to $102 in 2008. The $102 average donation per Jewish household is the sixth lowest
of about 50 comparison Jewish communities.
The 44% of households who donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year is about
average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities while the 59% of households
who donated to Other Jewish Charities in the past year, is the fifth highest of about 40
Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in Middlesex in the past year, only
15% were donated to the Jewish Federation (5% were donated to Other Jewish
Federations; 49%, to Other Jewish Charities; and 31%, to Non-Jewish Charities). The 15%
of charitable dollars donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year is the seventh
lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities. In contrast, the 49% of all charitable
dollars donated to Other Jewish Charities in the past year is the second highest of about
30 comparison Jewish communities.
xxviii
Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households to Any Jewish Charity in the past
year, 22% were donated to the Jewish Federation; 7%, to Other Jewish Federations; and
71%, to Other Jewish Charities. The 22% donated to the Jewish Federation is the sixth
lowest of the comparison Jewish communities.
Income levels and most measures of Jewish identity are very high in Middlesex. Thus,
significant resources exist in the Jewish community among people who have significant
Jewish commitment. The challenge is to educate potential donors about the Jewish
Federation and convince them that the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies are
important organizations deserving of their philanthropic support.
xxix
xxx
Jewish Federation
Colonia
Middlesex
South Plainfield
Carteret
Edison
Iselin
South Bound Brook
Piscataway
Avenel
Metuchen
Port Reading
Sewaren
Woodbridge
Fords
Edison
Somerset
Keasbey
Highland Park
Perth Amboy
Edison
New Brunswick
Laurence Harbor
Sayreville
North Brunswick Milltown
Parlin
South River
Cliffwood
East Brunswick
Kendall Park
Matawan
Old Bridge
Dayton
Monmouth Junction
Helmetta
Spotswood
Monroe Township
Spacer
Plainsboro
Cranbury
Spacer
Jewish Federation
07067
08846
07008
08820
07080
08830
08880
07064
07095
08854
08840
07077
08863
08861
08817
08832
08904
08873
07001
08837
08901
08879
08872
08902
08850
08859
08882
07721
08816
08824
07747
08857
08852
08810
08828
08884
08831
Spacer
08536
08512
Spacer
Distribution of Jewish Households
Each Dot Represents 10 Jewish Households
(Dots are Randomly Placed within Each Zip Code)
Spacer
Spacer
Jewish Federation
07067
08846
07080
07001
07008
08820
North
08830
07095
08854
08840
07064
07077
08863
Highland Park/South Edison 08817
08861
08832
08904
08837
08901
08879
08872
08902
08850
08859
08882
07721
08816
34023
Central
08824
08857
08852
08810
08828
08884
08831
Spacer
08536
08512
South
07747
Spacer
Major Findings
Size and Geographic Distribution of the Jewish Population
1. 56,600 persons live in 24,000 Jewish households in Middlesex, of whom 52,000 persons
(92%) are Jewish.
2. 4,500 persons live in 2,000 Jewish households in the North. 81% of persons in Jewish
households are Jewish. Thus, there are 3,600 Jews in the North.
3. 5,700 persons live in 1,700 Jewish households in Highland Park/South Edison. 100% of
persons in Jewish households are Jewish. Thus, there are 5,700 Jews in Highland
Park/South Edison.
4. 27,900 persons live in 10,100 Jewish households in the Central. 89% of persons in Jewish
households are Jewish. Thus, there are 24,800 Jews in the Central.
5. 18,500 persons live in 10,200 Jewish households in the South. 97% of persons in Jewish
households are Jewish. Thus, there are 17,900 Jews in the South.
6. 48% of Jews live in the Central; 34%, in the South; 11% in Highland Park/South Edison; and
7%, in the North.
7. 9% of households in Middlesex are Jewish households.
8. In addition to the Jewish population in Middlesex, about 1,450 Jewish households live in zip
code 08873 (Somerset in Somerset County), which is part of the service area of the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County.
9. Middlesex County has the third largest Jewish population in New Jersey.
10. 40% of Jewish households live in one zip code area (08831) and 66% live in one of three
zip code areas (08831, 08816, and 08857).
Changes in Size and Geographic Distribution of the Jewish Population
11. In 2000, 65,800 persons lived in 27,900 Jewish households in Middlesex.
12. The number of persons in Jewish households decreased from 65,800 persons in 2000 to
56,600 persons in 2008.
13. The geographic distribution of Jewish households in Middlesex changed from 2000-2008.
The percentage of households in the South increased from 33% to 43% while the
percentage in the Central decreased from 48% to 42%. No significant change is seen in the
North and Highland Park/South Edison.
14. The number of Jewish households in zip code 08873 increased from about 1,200
households in 2000 to 1,450 households in 2008.
Geographic Profile
15. 51% of households are on the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County mailing list.
16. 16% of adults in Jewish households were locally born (born in Middlesex).
17. 10% (4,757 adults) of adults in Jewish households were foreign born.
18. 7% (1,656 households) of households are from the Former Soviet Union.
19. 10% of households are part-year households (live in Middlesex for less than ten months
of the year).
20. 91% of households own their home.
21. 25% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have at least one adult child
who has established his/her own home in Middlesex; 43% have adult children who have
established their own homes outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes; and 15% have adult
children who have established their own homes further than 90 minutes from Middlesex.
1
Major Findings
22. 55% of respondents who are employed full time or part time work mostly in Middlesex;
30%, elsewhere in New Jersey; 13%, in New York; and 1%, elsewhere in the United States.
23. In 18% (3,584 households) of households in which the respondent or spouse (if any)
attended college, either one or both attended Rutgers-New Brunswick.
Migration
24. 94% of households in Middlesex moved to Middlesex from the Northeast (including 7% who
have always lived in Middlesex; 35% who moved from elsewhere in New Jersey; 47%, from
New York; 2%, from Pennsylvania; and 2%, from Massachusetts); 3%, from the South; 1%,
from the Midwest; 1%, from the West; and 1%, from foreign locations.
25. 11% of households have lived in Middlesex for 0-4 years; 47%, for 20 or more years.
26. An average of 523 households in Middlesex moved to Middlesex each year during the past
five years (the in-migration rate). An average of between 232 and 520 households will move
out of Middlesex each year within the next three years (the out-migration rate). Assuming
that the current rate of in-migration continues for the next few years, these data suggest that
the number of Jewish households in Middlesex will probably not change significantly during
the next few years as a result of migration into and out of Middlesex.
27. 19% of households have lived at their current address for 0-4 years; 27%, for 20 or more
years.
Age Distribution
28. 18% (9,961 children) of persons in Jewish households are age 0-17, of whom 84% (8,372
children) are being raised Jewish.
29. 36% (20,319 persons) of persons in Jewish households are age 65 and over.
30. 21% of persons age 65 and over in Middlesex live in Jewish households as of 2007.
31. 23% (12,791 persons) of persons in Jewish households are age 75 and over.
32. The median age of persons in Jewish households is 54.9 years.
Household Structure
33. The average household size is 2.36 persons.
34. 26% of households contain one person; 42%, two persons; 12%, three persons; and 19%,
four or more persons.
35. 21% of households are households with children age 0-17 at home; 9%, households with
only adult children age 18-29 at home; 39%, married households with no children at home;
26%, single person households; and 5%, other household structures.
36. 33% (2,265 children) of children age 0-12 in Jewish households live in households with
working parents (households in which both parents, or the parent in a single parent
household, are employed full time).
37. 6% (558 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in single parent
households.
38. 19% (1,873 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in households in which
an adult is or was divorced.
39. 24% (4,872 persons) of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households live alone.
40. 29% (3,672 persons) of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households live alone.
2
Major Findings
Marital Status, Level of Secular Education, and Employment Status
41. 70% of adults in Jewish households are currently married; 14%, single, never married;
4%, currently divorced; and 12%, currently widowed.
42. 30% (13,001 adults) of Jewish adults are currently single, of whom 34% are under age 35.
43. 66% of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households have a four-year college degree or
higher, including 28% with a graduate degree.
44. 37% of adults in Jewish households are employed full time; 9%, employed part time;
2%, unemployed at the time of the survey; 41%, retired; 3%, homemaker; 7%, student; and
1%, disabled.
Housing Value and Household Income
45. The median value of homes owned by Jewish households is $372,000.
46. The 2007 median household income is $90,000.
47. 44% of households earn an annual income of $100,000 and over.
48. 12% (2,904 households) of households are low income households (earned under
$25,000 in 2007).
49. 2% (480 households) of households reported a household income that was below the
Federal poverty levels.
Jewish Identification
50. 7% of Jewish respondents identify as Orthodox; 35%, Conservative; 0%, Reconstructionist;
29%, Reform; and 29%, Just Jewish.
Religious Practices
51. 83% of households have a mezuzah on the front door.
52. 83% of households always or usually participate in a Passover Seder.
53. 84% of households always or usually light Chanukah candles.
54. 25% of households always or usually light Sabbath candles.
55. 23% of households keep a kosher home; 12% of respondents keep kosher in and out of
the home.
56. 6% of respondents refrain from using electricity on the Sabbath.
57. 10% of households always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home.
58. 37% of Jewish respondents attended a theater, music or dance program in the past year
because it had Jewish content.
Synagogue Attendance
59. 22% of Jewish respondents attend synagogue services once per month or more.
60. 25% of Jewish respondents never attend synagogue services (or attend only for special
occasions).
Intermarriage
61. 84% of married couples in Jewish households are in-married; 2%, conversionary in-married;
and 14%, intermarried.
62. 20% (1,102 households) of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 were interested
in singles programs in the past year.
3
Major Findings
63. 21% of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 have used a Jewish Internet dating
service at some time.
64. 33% of children age 0-17 in intermarried households are being raised Jewish.
65. 1% (728 persons) of Jewish persons in Jewish households are Jews-by-Choice.
66. According to the Telephone Survey, 44% of households reported current synagogue
membership.
67. According to the Synagogue Survey, 27% of the 9,467 households who are members of a
synagogue located in Middlesex or neighboring communities are members of an Orthodox
synagogue; 43%, a Conservative synagogue; 18%, a Reform synagogue; and 12%, other
synagogues.
68. 83% of households are synagogue members at some time during their adult lives (lifetime
synagogue membership).
JCC Membership
69. According to the Telephone Survey, 3% of households reported current membership in a
Jewish Community Center (JCC); 2% reported membership in the JCC of Middlesex
County.
70. The major reason for not joining the JCC of Middlesex County most commonly reported
by respondents in households who are not members of the JCC of Middlesex County is no
need for the services offered (40%). 29% of respondents reported distance from home;
8%, lack of information about the JCC; 6%, cost; 4%, lack of time; 1%, quality of the
programs; and 14%, other reasons.
71. 15% (3,576 households) of households were members of the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley
in the past, including 4% (1,032 households) who were members 0-5 years ago; 2% (456
households), 6-9 years ago; and 9% (2,088 households), ten or more years ago.
72. 7% of households participated in or attended a program at, or sponsored by, the JCC
of Middlesex County in the past year.
73. 31% of households who are not members of the JCC of Middlesex County reported current
membership in a fitness facility or health club (fitness facility). The JCC has a 6% market
share of the fitness facility market among Jewish households.
74. If a new YM-YWHA were built in East Brunswick, 12% (2,880 households) of households
would definitely seriously investigate joining a new Y; 24% (5,856 households), probably;
33%, probably not; 28%, definitely not; and 3% don’t know.
Jewish Organization Membership
75. 38% of households reported current membership in a Jewish organization.
Overlapping Memberships
76. 58% of households are associated with the Jewish community in that someone in the
household is a member of a synagogue, Jewish Community Center (JCC), or Jewish
organization.
77. 2% of households are members of both a synagogue and a JCC; 42% are synagogue
members but are not JCC members; 1% are JCC members but are not synagogue
members; and 55% are neither synagogue nor JCC members.
4
Major Findings
Part of the Jewish Community
78. 18% of Jewish respondents feel very much part of the Middlesex Jewish community;
32%, somewhat; 28%, not very much; and 22%, not at all.
Formal Jewish Education of Adults as Children
79. 74% of born or raised Jewish adults received some formal Jewish education as children.
80. 12% of born or raised Jewish adults attended a Jewish day school as children.
Informal Jewish Education of Adults as Children
81. 24% of born or raised Jewish adults attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as
children.
82. 37% of born or raised Jewish adults participated in a Jewish youth group as teenagers.
83. 25% of born or raised Jewish adults who attended college participated in Hillel/Chabad
while in college (excluding High Holidays).
Internet Usage and Adult Jewish Education
84. 48% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past
year.
85. 17% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for information about the Middlesex
Jewish community in the past year, including 8% who visited the Jewish Federation web
site.
86. 28% of Jewish respondents attended an adult Jewish education program or class in the
past year.
Jewish Education of Children–Preschool
87. According to the Telephone Survey, 38% of Jewish children age 0-5 (excluding Jewish
children age 5 who already attend kindergarten) attend a Jewish preschool/child care
program; 22%, a non-Jewish preschool/child care program; and 39% do not attend a
preschool/child care program. According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 27% of Jewish
children age 0-5 attend a Jewish preschool/child care program.
88. 63% of Jewish children age 0-5 who attend a preschool/child care program attend a Jewish
preschool/child care program.
Jewish Education of Children–Jewish Day School
89. According to the Telephone Survey, 20% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-12
(excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend kindergarten) attend a Jewish day
school; 2%, a non-Jewish private school; and 79%, a public school.
90. 93% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a private school attend a Jewish
day school.
91. 50% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 either currently have a Jewish child in
Jewish day school, have sent a child in the past, will definitely send a child in the future, or
did or will seriously investigate sending a child to Jewish day school. 50% of households with
Jewish children age 0-17 are not in the Jewish day school market.
92. The major reasons for not sending Jewish children age 0-17 to a Jewish Day School
most commonly reported are tuition cost (42%), belief in public schools/ethnically mixed
environment (36%), school is too religious for family/family is not religious (22%), quality of
5
Major Findings
other private or public schools (10%), have a special needs child (6%), and quality of
education at Jewish day schools (5%).
Formal Jewish Education of Children–Current and Past Attendance
(excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend kindergarten) and 30% of nonOrthodox Jewish children age 13-17 currently attend formal Jewish education.
94. 80% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 13-17 have received some formal Jewish
education, including 17% at a Jewish day school.
Informal Jewish Education of Children
attended or worked at a Jewish day camp this past summer (the summer of 2007); 33%,
a non-Jewish day camp; and 53% did not attend or work at a day camp.
96. 9% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 6-17 attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away
camp this past summer (the summer of 2007); 4%, a non-Jewish sleep away camp; and
87% did not attend or work at a sleep away camp.
97. According to the Telephone Survey, 41% of Jewish children age 13-17 participate in a
Jewish teenage youth group. According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 45% of Jewish
children age 13-17 participate in a Jewish teenage youth group.
98. 65% of Jewish children age 0-17 are currently involved in some type of formal or
informal Jewish education.
Jewish Agencies–Familiarity
99. 15% of respondents are very familiar, 40% are somewhat familiar, and 45% are not at all
familiar with the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County.
familiar with the Jewish Family and Vocational Service.
familiar with Rutgers Hillel.
familiar with the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley.
familiar with the Jewish Community Center of Middlesex County.
104. 70% of respondents are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of the agencies queried.
Jewish Day Schools–Familiarity
105. 23% of respondents in households with Jewish children are very familiar, 42% are somewhat
familiar, and 35% are not at all familiar with the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan
Valley.
familiar, and 57% are not at all familiar with the Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva.
familiar, and 62% are not at all familiar with the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School.
6
Major Findings
Jewish Agencies–Perception
108. 23% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County and were able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent;
59%, good; 15%, fair; and 3%, poor.
109. 24% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Family and
Vocational Service and were able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent; 58%,
good; 13%, fair; and 5%, poor.
110. 32% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with Rutgers Hillel and were
able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent; 55%, good; 12%, fair; and 1%, poor.
111. 12% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the YM-YWHA of
Raritan Valley and were able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent; 62%, good;
15%, fair; and 11%, poor.
112. 16% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Community
Center of Middlesex County and were able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent;
59%, good; 21%, fair; and 5%, poor.
Jewish Day Schools–Perception
113. 17% of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very familiar or somewhat
familiar with the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley and were able to provide
a perception perceive it as excellent; 66%, good; 17%, fair; and 1%, poor.
familiar with the Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva and were able to provide a perception
perceive it as excellent; 53%, good; 23%, fair; and 6%, poor.
familiar with the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School and were able to provide a perception
perceive it as excellent; 37%, good; 41%, fair; and 12%, poor.
General Social Service Needs
116. 21% (5,016 households) of households contain a health-limited member, including 7% in
which the member needs daily assistance.
117. 7% (1,608 households) of households needed marital, family, or personal counseling in
the past year.
118. 17% (4,152 households) of households needed help in coordinating services for an elderly
or disabled person in the past year.
119. 2% (408 households) of households needed financial assistance in the past year.
120. 11% (1,331 households) of households with adults age 18-64 needed help in finding a job
or choosing an occupation in the past year.
121. 11% (452 households) of households with Jewish children age 0-17 needed programs for
Jewish children with learning disabilities or other special needs, such as developmental
disabilities, in the past year.
122. Most households who received social services in the past year received them from nonJewish sources.
Social Service Needs of the Elderly
123. 14% (1,905 households) of households with elderly persons needed in-home health care
in the past year.
7
Major Findings
124. 13% (1,718 households) of households with elderly persons needed senior transportation
in the past year.
125. 4% (519 households) of households with elderly persons needed home-delivered meals
in the past year.
126. 3% (453 households) of households with elderly persons needed adult day care in the past
year.
127. 3% (373 households) of households with elderly persons needed nursing home care in the
past year.
128. 3% (346 households) of households with elderly persons needed an assisted living facility
in the past year.
129. Most households with elderly persons who received social services for the elderly in the past
year received them from non-Jewish sources.
Other Social Service Issues
130. 12% of households in which the respondent is age 40 or over have an elderly relative who
lives outside the respondent’s home and who in some way depends upon the household
for care.
131. 30% of households in which the respondent is age 75 or over have at least one adult child
who has established his/her own home in Middlesex; 48% have adult children who have
established their own homes outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes of Middlesex.
132. 58% of Jewish respondents age 40 and over would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored
adult care facilities; 24% would somewhat prefer them; 16% would have no preference;
and 1% would rather not use them.
Israel
133. 54% of households contain a member who visited Israel.
134. 24% of households contain a member who visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 29%, on a
general trip.
135. 6% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a
Jewish trip and 13%, on a general trip.
136. 16% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 will not seriously investigate sending
a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel.
137. 27% of Jewish respondents are extremely emotionally attached to Israel; 31%, very
attached; 32%, somewhat attached; and 10%, not attached.
Anti-Semitism
138. 8% of Jewish respondents personally experienced anti-Semitism in Middlesex in the past
year.
139. 13% of households with Jewish children age 6-17 contain a Jewish child age 6-17 who
experienced anti-Semitism in Middlesex in the past year, mainly at school.
140. 5% of respondents perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in Middlesex; 26%, a moderate
amount; 48%, a little; and 21%, none at all.
The Media
141. 28% of Jewish respondents always read the New Jersey Jewish News; 9%, usually; 26%,
sometimes; and 37%, never.
8
Major Findings
142. 23% of Jewish respondents who always, usually, or sometimes read the New Jersey Jewish
News and were able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent; 61%, good; 16%, fair;
and 1%, poor.
Philanthropic Profile–JFGMC
143. According to the Telephone Survey, 44% of households donated to the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County (JFGMC) in the past year. According to the Jewish Federation
Survey, 16% of households donated to JFGMC in the past year.
144. 47% of households were not asked to donate to JFGMC in the past year; 9% were asked,
but declined to donate. 17% of households asked to donate to JFGMC in the past year did
not donate.
145. According to the Telephone Survey, 57% of households did not donate to JFGMC in the past
year; 30% donated under $100; 10%, $100-$500; and 4%, $500 and over.
146. According to the Jewish Federation Survey, the JFGMC Annual Campaign raised
$2,455,458 in 2008. The average donation per Jewish household is $102.
147. Not adjusted for inflation, the JFGMC Annual Campaign fluctuated from $2.4-$2.5 million
from 2000-2008. Adjusted for inflation, the JFGMC Annual Campaign decreased by
$778,820 from 2000 to 2008. The average donation per Jewish household decreased by $14.
Philanthropic Profile–Other Charities
148. 59% of households donated to Other Jewish Charities (Jewish charities other than Jewish
Federations) in the past year.
149. 41% of households did not donate to Other Jewish Charities in the past year; 27% donated
under $100; 21%, $100-$500; and 12%, $500 and over.
150. 79% of households donated to Non-Jewish Charities in the past year.
151. 21% of households did not donate to Non-Jewish Charities in the past year; 41% donated
under $100; 27%, $100-$500; and 11%, $500 and over.
Philanthropic Profile–Overlapping Donations
152. 73% of households donated to Any Jewish Charity (Jewish Federations and Other Jewish
Charities) in the past year.
153. 90% of households donated to Any Charity (Jewish and Non-Jewish) in the past year.
154. 21% of households donated to Other Jewish Charities but not to Any Jewish Federation
in the past year; 13% donated to Any Jewish Federation but not to Other Jewish Charities;
38% donated to both Any Jewish Federation and Other Jewish Charities; and 28% did not
donate to Any Jewish Charity.
155. 17% of households donated to Non-Jewish Charities but not to Any Jewish Charity in
the past year; 10% donated to Any Jewish Charity but not to Non-Jewish Charities; 63%
donated to both Any Jewish Charity and Non-Jewish Charities; and 11% did not donate to
Any Charity.
Philanthropic Profile–Market Share
156. Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past year, 15% were
donated to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County (JFGMC); 5%, to Other
Jewish Federations; 49%, to Other Jewish Charities; and 31%, to Non-Jewish Charities.
157. Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past year, 69% were donated
to Any Jewish Charity (including JFGMC).
9
Major Findings
158. Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households to Any Jewish Charity in the past
year, 22% were donated to JFGMC.
Philanthropic Profile–Wills
159. 16% of respondents age 50 and over do not have wills; 77% have wills that contain no
charitable provisions; 5% have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities; and 2% have
wills that contain provisions for non-Jewish charities only.
Philanthropic Profile–Volunteerism
160. 26% of Jewish respondents volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past year and
29%, for non-Jewish organizations.
161. 15% of Jewish respondents volunteered for Jewish organizations but not for non-Jewish
organizations in the past year; 17% volunteered for non-Jewish organizations but not for
Jewish organizations; 11% volunteered for both Jewish and non-Jewish organizations; and
57% did not volunteer for any organizations.
Philanthropic Profile–Attitudes
162. Respondents in households who donated $100 and over to the Jewish Federation of Greater
Middlesex County (JFGMC), Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the past
year were asked how important each of several motivations is in their decision to donate to
a Jewish organization:
providing social services for the Jewish elderly (67%, very important; 29%, somewhat
important; 4%, not at all important).
supporting the people of Israel (67%, very important; 28%, somewhat important; 5%,
not at all important).
combating anti-Semitism (67%, very important; 28%, somewhat important; 6%, not at
all important).
providing Jewish education for children (66%, very important; 27%, somewhat
helping Jews overseas who are in distress (54%, very important; 38%, somewhat
providing individual and family counseling for Jews (46%, very important; 41%,
somewhat important; 13%, not at all important).
supporting educational trips to Israel (41%, very important; 40%, somewhat important;
19%, not at all important).
providing social, recreational, and cultural activities for Jews (38%, very important;
50%, somewhat important; 12%, not at all important).
163. Respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFGMC in the past year were
asked whether each of several motivations would cause them to donate more to JFGMC.
Respondents would donate more to JFGMC if (they):
were asked by a close friend (35%).
more of the money went to local needs (33%).
had more say over how the money was spent (27%).
more of the money went to needs in Israel and overseas (24%).
were asked in person (22%).
received more recognition for their donation (1%).
10
Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities
The statements presented below illustrate the most important ways in which Middlesex differs
from other Jewish communities. The Main Report contains a complete listing of the comparison
Jewish communities to which Middlesex is compared in each of the statements below. The
approximate number of comparison Jewish communities (comparisons) to which Middlesex is
compared is shown in parentheses.
Compared to other Jewish communities, Middlesex has:
Size and Geographic Distribution of the Jewish Population
1. The 7th highest percentage of households in the local community who are Jewish households
(9%, 50 comparisons).
2. The highest percentage of households who live in the zip code area containing the highest
percentage of Jewish households (40%, 50 comparisons).
3. The 2nd highest percentage of households who live in the three zip code areas containing the
highest percentages of Jewish households (66%, 50 comparisons).
4. The 5th highest percentage of households who live in the five zip code areas containing the
highest percentages of Jewish households (73%, 50 comparisons).
Geographic Profile
5. The 7th highest percentage of households from the Former Soviet Union (7%, 35
comparisons).
6. The lowest percentage of households who live at their current address for 0-4 years
7. The 7th highest percentage of households who live at their current address for 20 or more
years (27%, 45 comparisons).
8. The 2nd highest percentage of households who own their homes (91%, 45 comparisons).
9. The 4th lowest percentage of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over who have
adult children who have established their own homes in the local area (16%, 25
comparisons).
Migration
10. The 4th lowest percentage of households definitely or probably moving (either within the local
area or out of the local area) within the next three years (11%, 40 comparisons).
11. The lowest percentage of households definitely or probably moving within the local
community (2%, 35 comparisons).
Age Distribution
12. The 7th highest percentage of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households
13. The 5th highest percentage of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households
14. The 8th highest median age of persons in Jewish households (54.9 years, 45 comparisons).
11
Household Structure
15. The 4th highest percentage of households with only adult children age 18 and over at home
16. The lowest percentage of married households under age 35 with no children at home (0%,
45 comparisons).
17. The 5th highest percentage of married households age 65 and over with no children at home
18. The 4th lowest percentage of single person households under age 65 (6%, 45 comparisons).
19. The 3rd highest percentage of single female households age 65 and over
20. The 3rd lowest percentage of children age 0-17 in Jewish households who live in households
in which an adult is or was divorced (19%, 30 comparisons).
Marital Status and Employment Status
21. The 3rd lowest percentage of adults in Jewish households who are currently divorced
22. The 7th lowest divorce rate (57 divorced adults in Jewish households per 1,000 married
adults, 40 comparisons).
23. The 7th lowest percentage of adults in Jewish households who are employed full time
24. The 7th highest percentage of adults in Jewish households who are retired
25. The 7th lowest percentage of adults in Jewish households in the labor force (48%, 50
comparisons).
26. The 8th lowest percentage of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households who are
employed (12%, 45 comparisons).
Household Income
27. The 4th highest median household income of households with children ($141,000,
45 comparisons).
28. The 4th highest percentage of households earning an annual income of $100,000 and over
Jewish Identification
29. The 7th highest percentage of Jewish respondents who identify as Conservative
Religious Practices
30. The 2nd highest percentage of households containing a member who observes at least one
of the following religious practices: always or usually participate in a Passover Seder; always
or usually light Chanukah candles; always or usually light Sabbath candles; or keep a kosher
home (91%, 40 comparisons).
31. The 2nd highest percentage of households who have a mezuzah on the front door
32. The 5th highest percentage of households who always or usually participate in a Passover
Seder (83%, 50 comparisons).
12
33. The 2nd highest percentage of households who always or usually light Chanukah candles
34. The 4th highest percentage of households who keep a kosher home (23%, 50 comparisons).
35. The 3rd highest percentage of respondents who keep kosher in and out of the home
36. The 4th highest percentage of respondents who refrain from using electricity on the Sabbath
37. The 2nd lowest percentage of households who always, usually, or sometimes have a
Christmas tree in the home (10%, 40 comparisons).
Synagogue Attendance
38. The 2nd highest percentage of Jewish respondents under age 35 who attend synagogue
services once per month or more (35%, 35 comparisons).
39. The 5th lowest percentage of Jewish respondents age 65-74 who attend synagogue services
once per month or more (18%, 40 comparisons).
40. The 6th lowest percentage of Jewish respondents age 65 and over who attend synagogue
services once per month or more (20%, 40 comparisons).
Intermarriage
41. The 2nd lowest percentage of married couples in Jewish households who are intermarried
42. The 4th lowest percentage of married couples in households under age 35 who are
intermarried (26%, 40 comparisons).
43. The 7th lowest percentage of married couples in households age 35-49 who are intermarried
46. The 3rd lowest percentage of married couples in households age 75 and over who are
47. The 4th lowest percentage of married couples in households age 65 and over who are
48. The 5th lowest percentage of Jewish children age 0-17 in married households being raised
in intermarried households (9%, 45 comparisons).
49. The lowest percentage of Jewish children age 0-17 in married households being raised in
conversionary in-married households (4%, 45 comparisons).
50. The 3rd highest percentage of persons in Jewish households who consider themselves
Jewish (92%, 55 comparisons).
51. The 2nd lowest percentage of Jewish persons in Jewish households who are Jews-by-Choice
13
52. The 4th highest percentage of households who were synagogue members in the past (since
becoming an adult) but do not plan to join a synagogue in the future (27%, 30 comparisons).
53. The lowest percentage of households who were not synagogue members in the past (since
becoming an adult) but plan to join a synagogue in the future (3%, 30 comparisons).
54. The 4th highest percentage of households who are members of a synagogue at some time
during their adult lives (83%, 30 comparisons).
55. The 5th highest percentage of households under age 35 who are current synagogue
members (44%, 40 comparisons).
56. The 4th highest percentage of synagogue member households who are members of an
Orthodox synagogue according to the Synagogue Survey (27%, 35 comparisons).
57. The lowest percentage of synagogue member households who are members of a Reform
synagogue according to the Synagogue Survey (18%, 35 comparisons).
JCC Membership
58. The 3rd lowest percentage of households who reported current membership in the local
Jewish Community Center (JCC) (2%, 50 comparison JCCs).
59. The 2nd lowest percentage of households with children who are current members of the local
JCC (2%, 45 comparison JCCs).
60. The 3rd lowest percentage of intermarried households who are current members of the local
JCC (1%, 45 comparison JCCs).
61. The 3rd lowest percentage of households who are members of the local JCC, according to
the JCC Survey (4%, 30 comparisons).
62. The 2nd lowest percentage of households who are both synagogue and JCC members
(2%, 45 comparison JCCs).
63. The 2nd highest percentage of households who are synagogue members but not JCC
members (42%, 45 comparison JCCs).
64. The lowest percentage of households who are JCC members but not synagogue members
65. The 2nd lowest percentage of households who participated in or attended a program at, or
sponsored by, the local JCC in the past year (7%, 45 comparison JCCs).
66. The 4th lowest percentage of households who participated in or attended a program at, or
sponsored by, the local JCC in the past year without being a member of the local JCC (5%,
45 comparison JCCs).
67. The 2nd lowest JCC market share of the fitness facility and health club market among Jewish
households (6%, 25 comparison JCCs).
Jewish Organization Membership
68. The 7th highest percentage of households who are current Jewish organization members
69. The 5th highest percentage of households who are current Jewish organization members
among households who are not members of a synagogue or JCC (23%, 40 comparisons).
Informal Jewish Education of Adults as Children
70. The 5th lowest percentage of born or raised Jewish adults who attended or worked at a
Jewish sleep away camp as children (24%, 30 comparisons).
14
71. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 5-17 who attend a Jewish day school
72. The lowest percentage of Jewish children age 5-17 who attend a non-Jewish private school
73. The 6th lowest percentage of Jewish children age 5-17 who attend a public school
74. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 5-17 in a private school who attend a Jewish
day school (98%, 40 comparisons).
75. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a Jewish day school
76. The 2nd lowest percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a non-Jewish private
school (1%, 35 comparisons).
77. The 3rd lowest percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a public school
78. The 2nd highest percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 in a private school who attend a
Jewish day school (98%, 35 comparisons).
79. The 3rd highest percentage of Jewish children age 13-17 who attend a Jewish day school
80. The lowest percentage of Jewish children age 13-17 who attend a non-Jewish private school
81. The 7th lowest percentage of Jewish children age 13-17 who attend a public school
82. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 13-17 in a private school who attend a
Jewish day school (98%, 35 comparisons).
Informal Jewish Education of Children
83. The 2nd lowest percentage of Jewish children age 3-17 who did not attend or work at a day
camp this past summer (the summer of 2007) (50%, 25 comparisons).
84. The 3rd lowest percentage of Jewish children age 6-17 who attended or worked at a nonJewish sleep away camp this past summer (3%, 25 comparisons).
85. The 2nd highest percentage of Jewish children age 6-17 attending or working at a sleep away
camp this past summer who attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp (86%, 25
comparisons).
86. The 5th lowest percentage of respondents who are very familiar with the Jewish Family and
Vocational Service (8%, 35 comparisons).
87. The 4th lowest percentage of respondents who are very familiar with the Jewish Community
Center (YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley) (7%, 40 comparison JCCs).
88. The lowest percentage of respondents who are very familiar with the Jewish Community
Center (JCC of Middlesex County) (4%, 40 comparison JCCs).
89. The 3rd lowest percentage of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with
the local Jewish Family and Vocational Service who perceive it as excellent (24%, 35
comparisons).
15
90. The 2nd lowest percentage of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with
the local Jewish Community Center (YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley) who perceive it as
excellent (12%, 40 comparison JCCs).
91. The 4th lowest percentage of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with
the local Jewish Community Center (JCC of Middlesex County) who perceive it as excellent
92. The 5th lowest percentage of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very
familiar or somewhat familiar with the local Jewish day school (Solomon Schechter Day
School of Raritan Valley) who perceive it as excellent (17%, 40 comparison Jewish day
schools).
93. The 7th lowest percentage of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very
familiar or somewhat familiar with the local Jewish day school (Rabbi Pesach Raymon
Yeshiva) who perceive it as excellent (18%, 40 comparison Jewish day schools).
94. The lowest percentage of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very
familiar or somewhat familiar with the local Jewish day school (Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High
School) who perceive it as excellent (11%, 40 comparison Jewish day schools).
General Social Service Needs
95. The 4th highest percentage of households who contain a health-limited member (21%,
40 comparisons).
96. The 5th highest percentage of elderly couple households with a health-limited member who
needs daily assistance (12%, 35 comparisons).
97. The 5th lowest percentage of households who needed marital, family, or personal counseling
in the past year (7%, 35 comparisons).
98. The 2nd highest percentage of households who needed help in coordinating services for an
elderly or disabled person in the past year (17%, 20 comparisons).
Social Service Needs of the Elderly
99. The 5th highest percentage of households with elderly persons who needed adult day care
in the past year (3%, 30 comparisons).
100. The 2nd highest percentage of households with children in which the respondent is age 40
or over who care for an elderly relative who does not live in the respondent’s household and
who in some way depends upon the household for his/her care (24%, 20 comparisons).
101. The 5th lowest percentage of households in which the respondent is age 75 or over who have
adult children who have established their own homes in the local area (30%, 30
comparisons).
Israel
102. The 7th highest percentage of households in which a member visited Israel on a general trip
103. The 5th highest percentage of households with Jewish children who have sent a Jewish child
to Israel (18%, 40 comparisons).
104. The 4th highest percentage of households with Jewish children who have sent a Jewish child
to Israel on a general trip (13%, 30 comparisons).
16
105. The 3rd highest percentage of Jewish respondents who are extremely or very emotionally
attached to Israel (58%, 35 comparisons). Note that the comparisons with other Jewish
communities need to be examined in light of the events occurring in Israel at the time of each
study.
Anti-Semitism
106. The 2nd lowest percentage of Jewish respondents who personally experienced anti-Semitism
in the local community in the past year (8%, 35 comparisons).
107. The 5th lowest percentage of respondents who perceive a great deal or a moderate amount
of anti-Semitism in the local community (31%, 35 comparisons).
108. The 6th lowest percentage of respondents who perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in the
local community (5%, 35 comparisons).
Philanthropic Profile–JFGMC
109. The 3rd highest percentage of households who donated under $100 to the local Jewish
Federation in the past year among households who donated (69%, 40 comparisons).
110. The 3rd lowest percentage of households who donated $1,000 and over to the local Jewish
Federation in the past year among households who donated (4%, 45 comparisons).
111. The 6th lowest percentage of households who donated to the local Jewish Federation in the
past year, according to the Jewish Federation Survey (16%, 35 comparisons).
112. The 6th lowest average donation to the local Jewish Federation per Jewish household ($102,
50 comparisons).
Philanthropic Profile–Other Charities
113. The 5th highest percentage of households who donated to Other Jewish Charities (Jewish
charities other than Jewish Federations) in the past year (59%, 40 comparisons).
114. The 3rd highest percentage of households who donated to Any Jewish Charity in the past
year (73%, 45 comparisons).
115. The 4th highest percentage of households who donated under $100 to Non-Jewish Charities
in the past year among households who donated (52%, 40 comparisons).
116. The 5th lowest percentage of households who donated $1,000 and over to Non-Jewish
Charities in the past year among households who donated (7%, 40 comparisons).
117. The 8th lowest percentage of households who donated to Non-Jewish Charities but not to
Any Jewish Charity in the past year (17%, 45 comparisons).
118. The 6th highest percentage of households who donated to both Any Jewish Charity and NonJewish Charities in the past year (63%, 45 comparisons).
119. The 7th lowest percentage of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past
year that were donated to the local Jewish Federation (15%, 35 comparisons).
120. The 2nd highest percentage of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past
year that were donated to Other Jewish Charities (49%, 30 comparisons).
121. The 6th lowest percentage of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past
year that were donated to Non-Jewish Charities (31%, 35 comparisons).
17
122. The 6th highest percentage of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past
year that were donated to Any Jewish Charity (69%, 35 comparisons).
123. The 6th lowest percentage of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households to Any
Jewish Charity in the past year that were donated to the local Jewish Federation (22%, 35
comparisons).
124. The lowest percentage of respondents age 50 and over who have wills that contain
provisions for Jewish charities (5%, 35 comparisons).
125. The lowest percentage of respondents age 50 and over who have wills that contain
provisions for non-Jewish charities only (2%, 30 comparisons).
126. The 3rd lowest percentage of Jewish respondents who volunteered for non-Jewish
organizations in the past year (29%, 25 comparisons).
127. The 5th lowest percentage of Jewish respondents who volunteered for non-Jewish
organizations but not Jewish organizations in the past year (17%, 25 comparisons).
128. The 3rd lowest percentage of Jewish respondents who volunteered for both Jewish and nonJewish organizations in the past year (11%, 25 comparisons).
129. The 4th highest percentage of Jewish respondents who did not volunteer for any
organizations in the past year (57%, 25 comparisons).
130. The 3rd highest percentage of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to the
local Jewish Federation, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the past
year who consider “supporting the people of Israel” to be a very important motivation to
donate to a Jewish organization (67%, 20 comparisons).
local Jewish Federation, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish Charities in the past
year who consider “supporting educational trips to Israel” to be a very important motivation
to donate to a Jewish organization (41%, 20 comparisons).
local Jewish Federation in the past year who would donate more to the local Jewish
Federation if “they were asked by a close friend” (35%, 20 comparisons).
18
Introduction
esearch and planning based upon sound
information have become essential
components of the activities of the organized
American Jewish community. Scientific Jewish
community studies have been completed in
more than 50 American Jewish communities
since 1993, covering about 80% of the
6,489,000 American Jews counted in the 2008
American Jewish Year Book. National Jewish
Population Surveys (NJPS) were conducted by
the Council of Jewish Federations (now
merged into United Jewish Communities) in
1971 and 1990 and by United Jewish
Communities in 2000-01 (NJPS 2000).
R
Second, complex decisions must be made by
the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex
County and Jewish agencies. Questions were
asked which will assist the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County and Jewish
organizations and agencies that provide, or are
concerned with, social and educational
services. This study provides the data to help
fine tune this network and prioritize the
services offered. In particular, specific
questions were designed in response to
growing concern in recent years about the
future of the Jewish Community Center.
This study will assist the Jewish Federation of
Greater Middlesex County, Jewish agencies,
local synagogues, and Jewish organizations in
developing the community's strengths and in
designing projects and programs to address its
needs. It will provide information to help the
community set priorities and guide decision
making in the 21st century.
Third, while the Jewish Federation of Greater
Middlesex County plays a central role in Jewish
fund raising, it is felt that there is potential for
increased giving across the community. To
help meet Jewish needs in Middlesex, Israel,
and around the world, questions were
designed to collect information helpful to
financial resource development by the Jewish
community.
Purposes of the Study
Methodology
Three driving forces helped to define the need
for, and the nature of, this study.
his study of the Middlesex Jewish
community consisted of a Telephone
Survey of 1,076 Jewish households in
Middlesex, a Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN)
Counting Project, and a Jewish Institutions
Survey.
First, the 1990 and 2000-01 National Jewish
Population Surveys and their reports of
significant rates of intermarriage and issues of
Jewish continuity have seriously impacted the
agenda of the American Jewish community.
Concern about Jewish continuity is as great in
Middlesex as in any other community. This
study was designed, in part, to provide the
Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex
County, Jewish agencies, local synagogues,
and Jewish organizations with information to
enable them to provide services and programs
to contribute to the development of a Jewish
community that will offer compelling reasons
for all Jews to maintain their Jewish identity
and remain active members of the community.
T
The Telephone Survey
he Telephone Survey consisted of 1,076
20-minute telephone interviews, including
469 interviews conducted from a random digit
dialing (RDD) sample and 607 interviews
conducted from a Distinctive Jewish Name
(DJN) sample.
T
In RDD surveys, random telephone numbers
using all three-digit telephone exchange codes
in the study area are generated by a computer.
When a number was dialed, there was no
19
Introduction
guarantee that a household, let alone a Jewish
household, would be reached. The introduction
to the survey asked whether anyone in the
household was born or raised Jewish or is
currently Jewish. 88% of households reached
answered this question. In total, 27,000
different numbers were dialed more than
54,000 times to obtain the 469 RDD telephone
interviews.
The RDD methodology is necessary for a study
to obtain results that accurately represent a
population. The major advantage of this
methodology is that it produces a random
sample of Jewish households to be
interviewed. The RDD methodology also has
the advantages of yielding a high survey
cooperation rate (90% of the Jewish
households reached in Middlesex), guaranteeing anonymity to respondents, and
providing the ability to interview households
with unpublished telephone numbers and
households who have recently migrated into
the local area. Perhaps more importantly, the
RDD methodology does not rely upon Jewish
households making themselves known to the
Jewish community by joining a synagogue, the
Jewish Community Center, or other Jewish
organizations, or by donating money to a
Jewish fund raising campaign. Thus, a more
accurate representation of the Jewish
community should be obtained with the RDD
methodology than with telephone directory
methods or methods that rely upon randomly
selecting households from Jewish organization
mailing lists.
After the completion of the RDD Telephone
Survey, an additional 607 telephone interviews
were conducted from households with a DJN
listed in the 2008 CD-ROM telephone
directory. This greatly facilitated the project: on
average, one RDD interview was completed
every 2 hours; one DJN interview was
completed every 40 minutes.
The RDD sample was compared to the DJN
sample on a number of key variables. It was
found (using chi-square tests) that these two
samples did differ significantly on geographic
area and length of residence. In addition, due
to small differences, weighting factors also
were applied for age of the head of the
household, synagogue membership, type of
marriage, and household income to make the
DJN sample somewhat more like the RDD
sample.
The questionnaire was designed through a
cooperative effort by the Study Development
Committee, Jewish Federation staff,
community rabbis, Jewish agency executives
and lay leadership, and Dr. Ira M. Sheskin of
the University of Miami.
Paid interviewers were hired from the
Middlesex Jewish community. Interviewers
were found via advertisements placed in the
local Jewish newspaper and publicity
throughout the Jewish community. The 43
interviewers (more than 150 persons inquired
about the positions) were themselves
interviewed for the interviewer positions. Two
3½-hour training sessions were held for
interviewers at the Jewish Federation building
prior to the commencement of the survey.
The Telephone Survey was conducted from
the Jewish Federation building in June 2008.
To facilitate contacting respondents, each
telephone number was dialed up to four times:
at least once in the early evening, at least once
later in the evening, at least once on a Sunday,
and once during the day on a weekday.
Interviews were conducted from 10:00 a.m. to
9:30 p.m. No interviews were conducted on
Friday evening or Saturday.
20
Introduction
Telephone Survey Reliability
he sample size of 1,076 is adequate so
that we can be 95% certain that the
margin of error for the overall results (the
results when examining all 1,076 interviews) is
no greater than ±3.0%. When results are not
based upon the total sample size of 1,076 (for
example, when results are presented for
households with elderly persons), the margin of
error is greater than ±3.0%. See Chapter 2 in
the Main Report for a detailed discussion of
sample size and margin of error.
T
Jewish Institutions Survey
rief surveys were administered to the
synagogues in Middlesex and
neighboring communities, the Jewish
Community Center, the Jewish day schools,
and the Jewish Federation. These surveys
primarily collected information on membership
levels and enrollments in various programs.
B
Another common error is to interpret results in
terms of the number of households when
results are shown in terms of the number of
persons, or vice versa.
The careful reader will notice small differences
in the percentages and numbers of households
and persons shown in various parts of this
Summary Report. The differences are due to
rounding error. At times, also due to rounding
error, the reported percentages do not sum to
100% and the reported numbers do not sum to
the appropriate numerical total. However, the
convention employed shows the total as 100%
or the appropriate numerical total.
Although many percentages for Middlesex
presented in this Summary Report are shown
to the nearest tenth and most numbers are
shown to the nearest integer, it should be
noted that all percentages and numbers are
estimates.
Definitions
Use of This Summary Report
eaders are cautioned that not all data that
justify the statements contained in this
Summary Report are reproduced herein. See
the Main Report for more complete results.
R
Demographic data are easily misunderstood.
The data in the text, tables, and graphs in this
Summary Report should be examined
carefully. The most common error in
interpretation occurs when readers do not
concentrate on the nature of the denominator
(or base) used in calculating a percentage. As
an example, note that in Chapter 6 in the Main
Report, this study reports that 35% of Jewish
respondents in the North identify as Reform.
Yet, 10% of Jewish respondents who identify
as Reform live in the North.
ey definitions of terms used in this
Summary Report are provided in this
section.
K
! Jewish Person
A Jewish person is any person who currently
considers himself/herself Jewish or who was
born Jewish or raised Jewish and has not
formally converted to another religion and does
not regularly attend religious services of
another religion (irrespective of formal
conversion). Note that whether a person was
born Jewish, was raised Jewish, or currently
considers himself/herself Jewish is based on
self-definition. A person who was born Jewish
or raised Jewish (excluding any such person
who has formally converted to another religion
or who regularly attends religious services of
another religion [irrespective of formal
conversion]), but currently considers
himself/herself to be secular, agnostic, atheist,
21
Introduction
non-practicing, non-religious, non-observant,
nothing, no religion, or a non-Western religion is
considered to be Jewish. Adults who consider
themselves part Jewish are considered to be
Jewish. Children who are part Jewish (being
raised both Jewish and in another religion) are
not considered to be Jewish. Persons who are
Messianic are not considered to be Jewish.
Persons of Jewish background who no longer
consider themselves to be Jewish are not
considered to be Jewish.
! Jewish Household
A Jewish household is any household
containing a Jewish person. See Chapter 2 in
the Main Report for the definition of eligible
Jewish households.
! Persons in Jewish Households
Persons in Jewish households are any persons
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) living in a Jewish
household. Some results in this report are
shown for persons in Jewish households, while
other results are shown only for Jewish
persons or only for non-Jewish persons in
Jewish households. Children who are
temporarily away at school are included as
persons in Jewish households. Paid Jewish
employees living in a Jewish household are
included as persons in Jewish households.
Paid non-Jewish employees living in a Jewish
household are not included as persons in
Jewish households.
! Jew-by-Choice
For adults, a Jew-by-Choice is any person age
18 or over who was not born or raised Jewish,
but currently considers himself/herself Jewish
(irrespective of formal conversion). For
children, a Jew-by-Choice is any person age
0-17 who was not born Jewish but is being
raised Jewish (irrespective of formal
conversion). Children who were not born
Jewish but are being raised Jewish and in
another religion are not considered to be Jewsby-Choice.
! Born or Raised Jewish Adult
A born or raised Jewish adult is any Jewish
person age 18 or over who was born or raised
Jewish. Jews-by-Choice (since they were not
born or raised Jewish) and persons of Jewish
background who no longer consider
themselves to be Jewish (since they are not
currently Jewish) are not considered to be born
or raised Jewish adults.
! Respondent
The respondent is the person in a Jewish
household who was queried in the Telephone
Survey. Some questions in the Telephone
Survey were asked of the respondent only,
while other questions were asked of the
respondent about the household or about other
persons in the household. Some results in this
Summary Report are shown for respondents
only. Some results are shown for all
respondents, while other results are shown
only for Jewish respondents. See Chapter 2 in
the Main Report for the definition of eligible
respondents.
! Head of Household
In most cases, the respondent is the head of
household. In cases in which the respondent is
not Jewish, the Jewish spouse (or partner or
significant other), parent, or other Jewish adult
is designated as the head of household.
In households in which the respondent is an
adult child, an elderly relative, or another
member of the household who is clearly not
the head of household, a Jewish head of
household is designated at random from the
husband and wife in the household or the
single parent is designated as the head of
household.
! Age of Head of Household
and Age of Respondent
Data are shown for the age of head of
household when examining questions in which
the head of household is instrumental in
22
Introduction
making a household decision (such as
synagogue membership or charitable
donations). Data are shown for the age of
respondent when examining questions in which
the respondent is expressing an opinion (such
as emotional attachment to Israel) and
questions asked only of the respondent (such
as synagogue attendance).
! Children in Jewish Households
and Jewish Children
Children in Jewish households are any persons
age 0-17 (both Jewish and non-Jewish) living
in a Jewish household. Jewish children are any
persons age 0-17 living in a Jewish household
who are identified by the respondent as being
raised Jewish. Children who are part Jewish
(being raised both Jewish and in another
religion) are not considered to be Jewish
children. Some results in this Summary Report
are shown for children in Jewish households or
Jewish households with children, while other
results are shown only for Jewish children or
households with Jewish children.
! Age Groups
Except as otherwise specified in this Summary
Report, children refers to persons age 0-17,
teenagers refers to persons age 13-17, adults
refers to persons age 18 and over, non-elderly
refers to adults under age 65, and elderly
refers to adults age 65 and over.
! Household Structure
Household with children refers to Jewish
households containing children (both Jewish
and non-Jewish) age 0-17 at home. Household
with only adult children refers to Jewish
households containing adult children (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) age 18-29 (unless
otherwise specified) at home and no children
age 0-17 at home. Non-elderly couple
household refers to two-person Jewish
households containing a married couple in
which the head of household is age 18-64.
Non-elderly single household refers to one-
person Jewish households containing a person
age 18-64. Elderly couple household refers to
two-person Jewish households containing a
married couple in which the head of household
is age 65 or over. Elderly single household
refers to one-person Jewish households
containing a person age 65 or over.
! Jewish Identification
Except as otherwise specified, results reported
for Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist,
Reform, and Just Jewish subgroups refer to
the respondent’s self-identification, not the
denomination of synagogue membership. In
cases in which the respondent is not Jewish,
the Jewish identification is that of the Jewish
spouse (or partner or significant other), parent,
or other Jewish adult as reported by the nonJewish respondent (in a proxy fashion). See
Chapter 2 in the Main Report for more
information on eligible respondents and proxy
responses.
! Types of Marriage
ì In-marriage: An in-marriage is a marriage in
which both spouses were born or raised
Jewish and currently consider themselves
Jewish.
í Conversiona r y I n-m a r riage: A
conversionary in-marriage is a marriage in
which one spouse was born or raised Jewish
and currently considers himself/herself Jewish
and the other spouse was not born or raised
Jewish but currently considers himself/herself
Jewish (irrespective of formal conversion)
(Jew-by-Choice).
î Intermarriage: An intermarriage is a
marriage in which one spouse currently
considers himself/herself Jewish and the other
spouse does not currently consider
himself/herself Jewish.
23
Introduction
! Jewish Organization
A Jewish organization is a Jewish organization
other than a synagogue or Jewish Community
Center. In querying whether anyone in the
household is currently a member of a Jewish
organization, respondents were given the
examples of B’nai B’rith and Hadassah.
! Jewish and General Trips to Israel
ì Jewish Trip: A Jewish trip to Israel is a trip
sponsored by a Jewish group, such as a
Jewish Federation, Jewish agency, synagogue,
or Jewish organization. Households containing
members who lived or studied in Israel
(excluding households containing Israelis) are
reported as households in which a member
visited Israel on a Jewish trip. Households
containing members who visited Israel on both
a Jewish trip and a general trip are reported as
households in which a member visited Israel
on a Jewish trip.
í General Trip: A general trip to Israel is
either a trip sponsored by a non-Jewish group
or commercial company or a trip in which the
household member visited Israel on his/her
own. Households containing Israelis are
reported as households in which a member
visited Israel on a general trip.
! Jewish Federation Market Segments
in the Past Year
Respondents were asked whether their
households donated to the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County (Jewish
Federation) in the past year. If their
households did not donate, the respondents
were asked whether the Jewish Federation
contacted them in the past year for the
purpose of asking their households to donate.
“Don’t know” responses were treated as
negative responses. From these two questions,
three Jewish Federation market segments are
developed:
ì Donated to Federation: Includes
households who reported that they donated to
the Jewish Federation in the past year.
í Asked, Did Not Donate: Includes
households who reported that the Jewish
Federation asked them to donate in the past
year, but they declined to donate.
î Not Asked: Includes households who
reported that they did not donate to the Jewish
Federation in the past year and were not asked
to donate.
! Donated to Jewish Federation
in the Past Year
The variable Donated to Jewish Federation in
the Past Year refers only to households who
donated to the Jewish Federation of Greater
Middlesex County.
! Median
The median is a measure of the central
tendency of a distribution. For example, if the
median age is 40, then half of the population is
under age 40 and half of the population is over
age 40.
! Base
The base refers to the set of households or
persons in a household to whom (or about
whom) each question on the Telephone Survey
was addressed. The base is the denominator
used in calculating the percentages shown in
the text, tables, and graphs. The base is
described either in the text, tables, or graphs
presented in this Summary Report. Examples
of bases used in this Summary Report include,
among others, Jewish Households, Persons in
Jewish Households, Respondents, Adults in
Jewish Households, and Jewish Children Age
0-17.
24
Introduction
Comparisons with Other Jewish
Communities
Comparisons with NJPS 2000
he NJPS 2000 questionnaire was
administered to 4,523 respondents who
represent the 5.2 million American Jews
estimated by the study. Of the 4,523
respondents, 4,220 respondents
(representing 4.3 million more Jewishlyconnected American Jews) received a longer
43-minute questionnaire. The other 303
respondents (representing 900,000 less
Jewishly-connected American Jews) received
a 21-minute questionnaire. The shorter
questionnaire consisted of a subset of
questions from the longer questionnaire,
omitting many questions about Jewish
identity. As a result, the NJPS 2000 results
for most demographic measures presented in
this Summary Report represent all 5.2 million
American Jews, while the NJPS 2000 results
for most Jewish identity measures presented
in this Summary Report represent only the
4.3 million more Jewishly-connected
American Jews. Results on Jewish identity
measures for the more Jewishly-connected
sample are, in most cases, more positive
than they would have been had these data
been collected from all respondents
representing the 5.2 million American Jews.
See www.jewishdatabank.org for more
information on the NJPS 2000 methodology.
T
n many cases this Summary Report
compares Middlesex with other American
Jewish communities. The choice of
comparison Jewish communities depends
upon whether particular Jewish communities
had recently (since 1993) completed studies
using RDD and whether questions had been
asked in a similar manner and results
reported in a manner facilitating comparison.
Also, to be included in a given comparison, a
community had to have asked the question of
the same set of households or persons in a
household as Middlesex. For example, if the
question in Middlesex was asked of all
persons in Jewish households, then only
other communities querying this set of
persons could be included in the comparison.
The comparisons of Middlesex with other
Jewish communities should be treated with
caution due to the different dates of the
studies, use of different sampling methods,
use of different questionnaires, and inclusion
of some data based on small sample sizes.
I
It is believed that based on the recency of the
study, geographic proximity of the community
to Middlesex, similar size of the Jewish
Federation Annual Campaign, or similar
population size of the community, the
following communities provide particularly
instructive comparisons with Middlesex:
Bergen, Monmouth, New York, and
Pittsburgh. These communities are shown in
boldface type in the comparison tables
shown in this Summary Report. See the Main
Report for a complete listing of the
comparison Jewish communities for each
question.
In the text of this Summary Report, NJPS
2000 results are referred to as nationally in
comparison to Middlesex results.
This researcher believes that comparisons
with other Jewish communities based upon
local community studies are more instructive
than comparisons with NJPS 2000.
See www.jewishdatabank.org for copies of
the questionnaires and community study
reports for many of the comparison Jewish
communities.
25
Introduction
Study Area
T
he study area includes all of Middlesex County in New Jersey. For the purposes of analysis,
the study area is divided into four geographic areas.
ì North. Includes 07001 (Avenel), 07008 (Carteret), 07064 (Port Reading), 07067 (Colonia),
07077 (Sewaren), 07080 (South Plainfield), 07095 (Woodbridge), 08820 (Edison), 08830 (Iselin),
08832 (Keasbey), 08837 (Edison), 08840 (Metuchen), 08846 (Middlesex), 08854 (Piscataway),
08855 (Piscataway), 08861 (Perth Amboy), and 08863 (Fords).
í Highland Park/South Edison. Includes 08817 (Edison) and 08904 (Highland Park).
î Central. Includes 07747 (Matawan), 08810 (Dayton), 08816 (East Brunswick), 08824 (Kendall
Park), 08850 (Milltown), 08852 (Monmouth Junction), 08857 (Old Bridge), 08859 (Parlin), 08872
(Sayreville), 08879 (South Amboy), 08882 (South River), 08884 (Spotswood), 08901 (New
Brunswick), 08902 (North Brunswick), and 08903 (New Brunswick).
ï South. Includes 08512 (Cranbury), 08536 (Plainsboro), 08828 (Helmetta), and 08831 (Monroe
Township).
26
Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population
n Middlesex, 56,600 persons live in 24,000 Jewish households, of whom 52,000 persons
(92%) are Jewish. In addition to the 56,600 persons in Jewish households, about 40 Jewish
persons live in institutions without their own telephone numbers and 4,050 Jewish students
(whose parents do not live in Middlesex) live in dormitories at Rutgers-New Brunswick. Thus, the
resident Jewish population is 52,040 Jews and, in total, the Jewish community contains almost
60,700 persons.
I
| Middlesex County has the third largest Jewish population in New Jersey.
| The number of Jewish households decreased by 14% from 27,900 households in 2000, but this
decrease may be within the margin of error of the methodology used to estimate the number of
households in 2000.
| The 24,000 Jewish households constitute 8.9% of the estimated 270,000 households in
Middlesex. The 56,600 persons in Jewish households constitute 7.4% of the estimated 769,000
persons in Middlesex. The 52,040 Jews constitute 6.8% of the estimated 769,000 persons in
Middlesex.
| The 8.9% of Jewish households is the seventh highest of about 50 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 15.0% in New York, 12.2% in Monmouth, 8.6% in Bergen, and
4.0% in Pittsburgh. The 8.9% compares to 2.7% nationally.
| According to the 2007 American Community Survey, 19.0% of persons in Middlesex are Asian,
17.1% are Hispanic, and 10.5% are Black.
| The 51% of Jewish households on the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County mailing
list as of 2008 is well below
average among about 35
comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 70% in Bergen
and 47% in Monmouth.
| The Jewish population is highly
concentrated geographically. The
40% of Jewish households who live
in the top zip code area (08831Monroe Township) is the highest of
about 50 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 28%
in Pittsburgh, 21% in Monmouth,
17% in Bergen, and 4% in New York.
| 66% of Jewish households live in
the top three zip code areas
(08831, 08816-East Brunswick, and
08857-Old Bridge).
Number of Jewish Households, 2000 and 2008
27
Table 1
Current Size of the Jewish Community
Persons in
Jewish Households
Number of
Jewish
Households
Average
Household
Size
Number
of
Persons
Percentage
Jewish
Number
of
Jews
North
2,000
2.25
4,500
81.3%
3,600
Highland Pk/S Edison
1,700
3.35
5,700
99.6%
5,700
Central
10,100
2.76
27,900
88.8%
24,800
South
10,200
1.82
18,500
96.7%
17,900
All
24,000
2.36
56,600
91.9%
52,000
Geographic Area
Table 2
Geographic Distribution of the Jewish Community
Jewish
Households
Geographic Area
Persons in
Jewish Households
Jews in
Jewish Households
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
North
2,000
8.3%
4,500
7.9%
3,600
6.9%
Highland Pk/
S Edison
1,700
7.1
5,700
10.1
5,700
11.0
Central
10,100
42.1
27,900
49.3
24,800
47.7
South
10,200
42.5
18,500
32.7
17,900
34.4
All
24,000
100.0%
56,600
100.0%
52,000
100.0%
| The number of Jewish households in the North decreased from 2,700 households to 2,000
households from 2000-2008. The number of persons in Jewish households decreased from 5,800
persons to 4,500 persons.
| The number of Jewish households in Highland Park/South Edison decreased from 2,500
households to 1,700 households from 2000-2008. The number of persons in Jewish households
decreased from 8,100 persons to 5,700 persons.
| The number of Jewish households in the Central decreased from 13,400 households to 10,100
households from 2000-2008. The number of persons in Jewish households decreased from 35,600
| The number of Jewish households in the South increased from 9,300 households to 10,200
households from 2000-2008. The number of persons in Jewish households increased from 16,300
28
Geographic Distribution of Jewish Households–2000
Geographic Distribution of Jewish Households–2008
29
Number of Persons in Jewish Households by Geographic Area, 2000 and 2008
| About 1,450 Jewish households live in zip code 08873 (Somerset), with about 4,000 persons in
Jewish households and 3,500 Jews.
| The number of Jewish households in zip code 08873 increased from about 1,200 households in
2000.
30
Geographic Profile
90% of adults in Jewish households in Middlesex were born in the United States. 87% of
O verall,
adults in Jewish households were born in the Northeast (including 53% in New York, 29% in
New Jersey, 2% in Pennsylvania, and 1% in Massachusetts); 2%, in the South; 1%, in the Midwest;
and 1%, in the West. 16% (7,462 adults) of adults in Jewish households were locally born (born in
Middlesex). 10% (4,757 adults) of adults in Jewish households were foreign born. 1% (373 adults) of
adults in Jewish households were born in Israel.
| The 16% locally born is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 59% in New York, 49% in Pittsburgh, 14% in Bergen, and 10% in Monmouth.
| The percentage of locally-born adults is important in understanding levels of attachment to the local
community and local institutions. Most observers agree that adults living in the area in which they were
born are more likely to maintain formal contacts with the Jewish community. They are more likely to
continue to belong to the synagogue in which they were raised and to participate in the local organized
Jewish community.
| The 10% foreign born is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 27% in New York, 17% in Bergen, 10% in Pittsburgh, and 7% in Monmouth.
Households from the Former Soviet Union
| 7% (1,656 households) of households are from the Former Soviet Union.
Part-Year Households
| 10% (2,376 households) of households live in Middlesex for less than ten months of the year.
Home Ownership
| The 91% of households who
own their home the second highest
of about 45 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 89%
in Monmouth, 84% in Bergen, 73%
in Pittsburgh, and 55% in New
York. The 91% compares to 66%
nationally, 67% of all households
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) in
Middlesex as of 2007, and 67% of
all American households (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) as of
2007.
Location of Residence Prior to Middlesex
31
Geographic Profile
Length of Residence
| 11% (2,616 households) of households in Middlesex moved to Middlesex within the past five years
(new households). 12% of households have lived in Middlesex for 5-9 years; 30%, for 10-19 years;
and 47%, for 20 or more years (long-term households).
| The 11% of new households is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 13% in both Monmouth and Bergen and 9% in Pittsburgh.
| Compared to longer-term households (live in Middlesex for five years or more), new households
are (were) more likely to live in the South, be age 65-74, be non-elderly couple households, be retired,
be Conservative, not be asked to donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year, and not donate
to the Jewish Federation in the past year.
| The 47% of long-term households is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 73% in Pittsburgh, 56% in Bergen, and 46% in Monmouth.
| 19% of households have lived at their current address for 0-4 years; 20%, for 5-9 years; 34%, for
10-19 years; and 27%, for 20 or more years.
| The 19% at their current address for 0-4 years is the lowest of about 45 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 26% in both Monmouth and New York and 25% in Bergen.
Length of Residence in Middlesex
32
Geographic Profile
Migration
| 5% (1,152 households) of households will definitely move (either within Middlesex or out of
Middlesex) within the next three years. 6% (1,536 households) of households will probably move;
36%, probably not; 49%, definitely not; and 4% don’t know. In total, 11% of households will definitely
or probably move within the next three years. The 11% is the fourth lowest of about 40 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 23% in Bergen and 17% in Monmouth. The 11% compares to
32% nationally.
| The 7% of households who will definitely or probably move out of Middlesex within the next
three years is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 10%
in Bergen and 6% in Monmouth.
| The 3% (696 households) of households who will definitely move out of Middlesex within the
next three years is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 4.2% in Bergen and 2.5% in Monmouth.
| The 3% definitely moving out of Middlesex within the next three years suggests a loss of an
average of 232 households per year. Some portion of the 4% probably moving out of Middlesex (an
average of 288 households per year) will actually move. In total, an average of between 232 and 520
households will move out of Middlesex each year within the next three years (the out-migration rate).
An average of 523 households in Middlesex moved to Middlesex each year during the past five years
(the in-migration rate). Assuming that the current rate of in-migration continues for the next few years,
these data suggest that the number of Jewish households in Middlesex will probably not change
significantly during the next few years as a result of migration into and out of Middlesex.
Probability of Moving Within the Next Three Years
(Either Within or Out of Middlesex)
33
Geographic Profile
Location of Adult Children
| Respondents age 50 and over were asked whether they have adult children who have established
their own homes, and if so, whether these children live in Middlesex (households with local adult
children). The interest in this information relates to the support system that adult children can provide
for their parents, particularly in times of poor health or financial crisis. Adult children living in Middlesex
presumably will provide such a support system. The presence of adult children living in Middlesex also
indicates the existence of multi-generational families. Such families generally show a greater level of
attachment to the local community and local institutions.
| 25% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have at least one adult child who has
established his/her own home in Middlesex; 43% have adult children who have established their own
homes outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes; 15% have adult children who have established their
own homes further than 90 minutes from Middlesex; and 17% have no adult children who have
established their own homes. These data suggest that at least 68% of households in which the
respondent is age 50 or over will have a local support system as they age.
| The 25% of households with local adult children is well below average among about 30
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 48% in Pittsburgh, 38% in Monmouth, and 35%
in Bergen. However, note that the 25% does not include the 43% of households with adult children
outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes of Middlesex.
| An additional 11% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have adult children
Location of Adult Children
(Households in Which the Respondent Is Age 50 or Over)
34
Geographic Profile
living in their household, for a total of 79% of households with adult children currently living in
Middlesex or within 90 minutes of Middlesex.
| 16% of adult children from households in which the respondent is age 50 or over who have
established their own homes live in Middlesex. The 16% is the fourth lowest of about 25 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 39% in Pittsburgh and 29% in Bergen. However, note that the
16% does not include 46% of adult children who have established their own homes outside Middlesex
but within 90 minutes of Middlesex.
Geographic Location of Employment
| 55% of respondents who are employed full time or part time work mostly in Middlesex; 30%,
elsewhere in New Jersey; 13%, in New York; and 1%, elsewhere in the United States.
Attended Rutgers-New Brunswick
Geographic Location of Employment (Respondents)
| In 18% (3,584 households) of households in which the respondent or spouse (if any) attended
college, either one or both attended Rutgers-New Brunswick.
35
Demographic Profile–Age
he age and sex distribution of a population is among the most important demographic
indicators. It is a major determinant of the types of programs a Jewish community must offer.
Age is related to everything from levels of religious observance to synagogue membership and
levels of philanthropy.
T
| The 18% of persons age 0-17 in Jewish households in Middlesex is about average among
about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 27% in Bergen, 25% in Monmouth,
23% in New York, and 21% in Pittsburgh. The 18% compares to 20% nationally, 23% of all
residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) of Middlesex as of 2007, and 25% of all Americans (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2007.
| 3,000 children age 0-5 live in Jewish households (of whom 83% (2,496 children) are being
raised Jewish), as do 3,905 children age 6-12 (of whom 88% (3,432 children) are being raised
Jewish) and 3,056 children age 13-17 (of whom 80% (2,444 children) are being raised Jewish).
An average of 487 children are born each year to persons in Jewish households in Middlesex.
| The 36% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is the seventh highest of about 50
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 19% in Monmouth and 18% in each of
New York, Pittsburgh, and Bergen. The 36% compares to 16% nationally, 12% of all residents
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) of Middlesex as of 2007, and 13% of all Americans (both Jewish
and non-Jewish) as of 2007. The 20,319 persons age 65 and over in Jewish households
represent 21% of the almost 95,000 persons age 65 and over in Middlesex.
Age Distribution of Persons in Jewish Households
36
Table 3
Age and Sex Distribution of Persons in Jewish Households
Percentage
Number
Age Group
Male
Female
All
Male
Female
All
0-5
2.6%
2.7%
5.3%
1,472
1,528
3,000
6 - 12
4.1
2.8
6.9
2,321
1,585
3,905
13 - 17
2.9
2.5
5.4
1,641
1,415
3,056
18 - 24
3.7
3.1
6.8
2,094
1,755
3,849
25 - 34
2.3
2.5
4.8
1,302
1,415
2,717
35 - 44
3.9
4.7
8.6
2,207
2,660
4,868
45 - 54
6.1
6.5
12.6
3,453
3,679
7,132
55 - 64
6.3
7.7
14.0
3,566
4,358
7,924
65 - 74
5.8
7.5
13.3
3,283
4,245
7,528
75 - 84
7.5
9.7
17.2
4,245
5,490
9,735
85 and over
2.4
3.0
5.4
1,358
1,698
3,056
47.4%
52.6%
100.0%
26,828
29,772
56,600
Total
Cumulative Age Categories
0 - 17
9.6%
8.0%
17.6%
5,434
4,528
9,961
18 and over
37.8%
44.6%
82.4%
21,394
25,244
46,639
18 - 34
6.0%
5.6%
11.6%
3,396
3,170
6,566
35 - 49
6.7%
7.5%
14.2%
3,793
4,245
8,038
50 - 64
9.5%
11.4%
20.9%
5,376
6,452
11,829
65 and over
15.7%
20.2%
35.9%
8,886
11,433
20,319
75 and over
9.9%
12.7%
22.6%
5,603
7,188
12,791
Median Age 1
52.3
57.1
54.9
1
Median age in years.
| The number of children age 0-4 in Jewish households (2,434 children) is lower than the number
of children age 5-9 (2,717 children), which, in turn, is lower than the number of children age 10-14
(2,830 children), which, in turn, is lower than the number of persons age 15-19 (2,943 children).
This suggests a decreasing birth rate for persons in Jewish households in Middlesex over the past
20 years.
37
by Geographic Area
North (Median Age = 52.1 years)
Highland Park/South Edison (Median Age = 31.1 years)
38
by Geographic Area – continued
Central (Median Age = 45.7 years)
South (Median Age = 75.3 years)
39
Demographic Profile–Household Size
he average household size of Jewish households in Middlesex is 2.36 persons. The 2.36
average household size is below average among about 55 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 2.79 in Monmouth, 2.75 in Bergen, and 2.59 in both New York and Pittsburgh.
The 2.36 compares to 2.31 nationally, 2.80 for all households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in
Middlesex as of 2007, and 2.61 for all American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of
2007.
T
| The 26% of one-person households is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 28% in New York, 23% in Pittsburgh, and 20% in both Bergen and
Monmouth. The 26% compares to 30% nationally, 23% of all households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007, and 27% of all American households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) as of 2007.
| The 19% of households with four or more persons is below average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Monmouth, 31% in Bergen, 26% in
Pittsburgh, and 24% in New York. The 19% compares to 19% nationally, 29% of all households
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2000, and 25% of all American households (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2000.
Household Size (Persons in Jewish Households)
40
Demographic Profile–Household Structure
T
he household structure of Jewish households in Middlesex is determined by a combination
of age, sex, marital status, and the relationship between persons in the household.
Household Structure
Households with Children
| The 19% of married households with children age 0-17 at home is below average among
about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Bergen, 32% in Monmouth,
and 26% in both New York and Pittsburgh. The 19% compares to 19% nationally, 29% of all
households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007, and 21% of all American
households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2007.
| The 1% of single parent households with children age 0-17 at home is about average
among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 4% in Pittsburgh, 3% in
Bergen, 2% in New York, and 1% in Monmouth. The 1% compares to 3% nationally and 8% of
all American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2000.
41
Table 4
Household Structure
Household Structure
Percentage
Number
Households with Children Age 0-17 at Home
Married Couple
18.7%
4,488
Unmarried Couple
0.2
48
Single Parent
1.4
336
Same-Sex Couple
0.0
0
Other
0.5
120
20.8%
4,992
# Total Households with Children Age 0-17 at Home
Households with Only Adult Children Age 18-29 at Home
Married Couple
8.0%
1,920
Unmarried Couple
0.0
0
Single Parent
1.0
240
Same-Sex Couple
0.1
24
9.1%
2,184
# Total Households with Only Adult Children
Age 18-29 at Home
Married Households—No Children at Home
Under Age 35
0.3%
72
Age 35 - 49
1.0
240
Age 50 - 64
9.5
2,280
9 Total Non-Elderly Couple Households
10.8%
2,592
Age 65 - 74
12.2%
2,928
15.7
3,768
9 Total Elderly Couple Households
27.9%
6,696
# Total Married Households–No Children at Home
38.7%
9,288
Age 75 and over
42
Table 4
Household Structure
Household Structure
Percentage
Number
2.9%
696
3.1
744
9 Total Non-Elderly Single Households
6.0%
1,440
Male Age 65 - 74
1.0%
240
Female Age 65 - 74
4.0
960
Male Age 75 and over
2.1
504
Female Age 75 and over
13.2
3,168
9 Total Elderly Single Households
20.3%
4,872
# Total Single Person Households
26.3%
6,312
Unmarried Couple
1.0%
240
Roommate/Friend
0.3
72
Parent Living with Adult Children Age 30 and over
2.7
648
Same-Sex Couple
0.1
24
Other
1.0
240
5.1%
1,224
100.0%
24,000
Single Person Households
Male under Age 65
Female under Age 65
Other Household Structures
# Total Other Household Structures
Grand Total
Married Households–No Children at Home
| The 39% of married households with no children at home is above average among about
45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 30% in both Bergen and Monmouth, 27%
in Pittsburgh, and 25% in New York. The 39% compares to 26% nationally and 30% of all
American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2000.
| The 0% of married households under age 35 with no children at home is the lowest of
about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 3% in New York and 2% in each of
Monmouth, Bergen, and Pittsburgh.
43
| The 11% of married households age 35-64 with no children at home is about average
among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 13% in both Monmouth and
Bergen, 12% in Pittsburgh, and 9% in New York.
| The 28% of married households age 65 and over with no children at home is the fifth
highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 16% in Bergen, 15% in
Monmouth, and 13% in both New York and Pittsburgh.
Single Person Households
| The 6% of single person households under age 65 is the fourth lowest of about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 14% in New York, 11% in Pittsburgh, 8% in
Bergen, and 6% in Monmouth. The 6% compares to 15% of all households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007 and 18% of all American households (both Jewish and
| The 3% of single male households age 65 and over is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 4% in New York and 3% in each of Monmouth,
Bergen, and Pittsburgh.
| The 17% of single female households age 65 and over is the third highest of about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 11% in Monmouth, 10% in both New York and
Bergen, and 9% in Pittsburgh.
Living Arrangements of Children
| The 33% (2,265 children) of children age 0-12 in Jewish households who live in households
with working parents (households in which both parents, or the parent in a single parent
household, are employed full time) is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 32% in Bergen and 29% in Monmouth. The percentage of children
age 0-12 living in households with working parents helps to determine the need for after school
programs.
| The 6% (558 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households who live in single parent
households (households with one parent and children age 0-17 at home) is about average
among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 7% in Bergen, 5% in
New York, and 3% in Monmouth. The 6% compares to 25% of all White American children (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) age 0-17 as of 2000.
| The 19% (1,873 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households who live in households
in which an adult is or was divorced is the third lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 24% in Bergen and 16% in Monmouth. The adult may or may not
be the parent of the child.
44
Living Arrangements of the Elderly
| The 24% (4,872 persons) of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households who live alone
is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 29% in
New York, 26% in both Monmouth and Pittsburgh, and 24% in Bergen. The 24% compares to
22% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 65 and over of Middlesex as of 2007 and
27% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 65 and over as of 2007.
| The 29% (3,672 persons) of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households who live alone
is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 37% in
New York, 33% in Monmouth, 32% in Pittsburgh, and 29% in Bergen.
Household Structures by Geographic Area – continued on next page
45
Household Structures by Geographic Area – continued
46
Demographic Profile–Marital Status
he 70% of adults in Jewish households in Middlesex who are currently married is about
average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 73% in
Monmouth, 72% in Bergen, 59% in Pittsburgh, and 57% in New York. The 70% compares to 54%
of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over of Middlesex as of 2007 and
50% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over as of 2007.
T
| The 14% single, never married is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 21% in New York, 19% in Pittsburgh, and 15% in both Monmouth
and Bergen. The 14% compares to 30% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and
over of Middlesex as of 2007 and 31% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and
over as of 2007.
| The divorce rate is the number of divorced adults per 1,000 married adults. The divorce rate
of 57 for adults in Jewish households is the seventh lowest of about 40 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 75 in Bergen and 50 in Monmouth. The 57 compares to 149 for
all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over of Middlesex as of 2007 and 209 for
all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over as of 2007.
| The 12% currently widowed is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 13% in both Pittsburgh and New York, 8% in Monmouth, and 7%
in Bergen. The 12% compares to 6% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and
over of Middlesex as of 2007 and 6% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and
over as of 2007.
| 9% of adults in Jewish households are or have been divorced; 13% are or have been widowed;
86% are or have been married; and 7% are on their second or higher marriage.
Marital Status (Adults in Jewish Households)
47
Demographic Profile–Marital Status
Table 5
Marital Status by Age for Adult Males in Jewish Households
Marital Status
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65-74
75+
65+
Married for First Time
21.3%
79.3%
75.2%
76.2%
78.9%
77.9%
Single, Never Married
78.0
10.1
6.1
2.0
0.4
1.0
Divorced, Remarried
0.0
5.2
11.3
8.6
3.9
5.6
Widowed, Remarried
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.3
3.9
3.0
Currently Divorced
0.7
4.5
5.3
5.1
1.8
3.0
Currently Widowed
0.0
0.0
1.0
5.4
10.5
8.6
Separated
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
Live as Same-Sex Couple
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.5
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Table 6
Marital Status by Age for Adult Females in Jewish Households
Marital Status
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65-74
75+
65+
Married for First Time
30.3%
78.3%
70.7%
66.6%
45.9%
53.6%
Single, Never Married
65.9
10.0
4.9
1.5
0.9
1.1
Divorced, Remarried
0.0
6.4
10.1
3.7
1.3
2.2
Widowed, Remarried
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.8
2.3
2.1
Currently Divorced
3.8
2.7
8.0
4.6
2.2
3.1
Currently Widowed
0.0
1.5
4.6
21.3
47.4
37.7
Separated
0.0
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.2
Live as Same-Sex Couple
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Single Jewish Adults
| 30% (13,001 adults) of Jewish adults in Jewish households are currently single. 34% (4,368
adults) of single Jewish adults are under age 35; 8% (1,001 adults), age 35-49; 14% (1,794
adults), age 50-64; 12% (1,560 adults), age 65-74; and 33% (4,277 adults), age 75 and over. 66%
of single Jewish adults are female.
48
Demographic Profile–Secular Education
nly 1% of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households in Middlesex do not have a high
school degree. 66% of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households (74% of males age 25
and over and 60% of females age 25 and over) have a four-year college degree or higher,
including 28% with a graduate degree.
O
| The 66% with a four-year college degree or higher is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 76% in Bergen, 70% in Pittsburgh, 65% in
New York, and 58% in Monmouth. The 66% compares to 37% of all adults (both Jewish and nonJewish) age 25 and over in Middlesex as of 2007 and 28% of all American adults (both Jewish
and non-Jewish) age 25 and over as of 2007.
| The 28% with a graduate degree is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 38% in Pittsburgh, 37% in New York, 35% in Bergen, and 22% in
Monmouth. The 28% compares to 15% of all adults (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 25 and
over in Middlesex as of 2007 and 10% of all American adults (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age
25 and over as of 2007.
| 20% of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households have a Master’s degree; 4%, a doctoral
degree; 2%, a medical or dental degree; and 1%, a law degree. There are about 644 doctors, 86
dentists, and 516 lawyers age 25 and over living in Jewish households.
Secular Education (Adults Age 25 and Over in Jewish Households)
49
Demographic Profile–Secular Education
Table 7
Secular Education by Age for Adult Males in Jewish Households
Highest Degree Earned
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65-74
75+
65+
High School Degree or Less
5.0%
3.2%
7.6%
7.2%
13.6% 26.5%
Some College/
2-Year College Degree
68.7
11.1
10.1
10.2
11.0
17.2
15.0
25.8
45.5
48.8
42.9
42.5
34.9
37.6
Graduate Degree
0.5
40.2
33.5
39.7
32.9
21.4
25.6
21.8%
Total
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total 4-Year College Degree
or Higher
26.3% 85.7% 82.3% 82.6% 75.4% 56.3%
63.2%
Table 8
Secular Education by Age for Adult Females in Jewish Households
Highest Degree Earned
18-24
25-34
High School Degree or Less
4.0%
16.4% 10.9% 11.6% 24.1% 44.9%
Some College/
64.1
9.4
6.1
12.9
20.4
21.6
21.1
29.2
45.8
47.8
43.9
33.4
21.9
26.2
Graduate Degree
2.7
28.4
35.2
31.6
22.1
11.6
15.4
Total
35-49
50-64
65-74
75+
65+
37.3%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total 4-Year College Degree or
Higher
31.9% 74.2% 83.0% 75.5% 55.5% 33.5%
41.6%
| Adults age 18-24 in Jewish households are not included in the results for adults age 25 and
over on the previous page.
50
Demographic Profile–Employment Status
he 37% of adults in Jewish households in Middlesex who are employed full time is the
seventh lowest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 50% in
Monmouth and 49% in Bergen.
T
| The 41% retired is the seventh highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 25% in New York, 24% in both Monmouth and Pittsburgh, and 21% in Bergen.
| The percentage of adults in Jewish households who are in the labor force is the sum of the
percentages of adults who are employed full time, employed part time, and unemployed at the
time of the survey. The 48% in the labor force is the seventh lowest of about 50 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 63% in New York, 62% in Bergen, 60% in Monmouth, and
59% in Pittsburgh. The 48% compares to 66% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age
16 and over of Middlesex as of 2007 and 64% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age
16 and over as of 2007. The data for all residents of Middlesex and all Americans exclude
employment in the military.
| The unemployment rate is the percentage of adults in Jewish households who are unemployed
at the time of the survey divided by the percentage of adults in the labor force. The
4% unemployment rate is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 11% in New York, 2% in Monmouth, and 1% in both Bergen and Pittsburgh. The 4%
compares to 5% for all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 16 and over of Middlesex as
of 2007 and 6% for all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 16 and over as of 2007.
Employment Status (Adults in Jewish Households)
51
Demographic Profile–Employment Status
Table 9
Employment Status by Age for Adult Males in Jewish Households
Employment Status
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65-74
75+
65+
Employed Full Time
43.1%
96.4%
77.0%
20.9%
2.3%
9.2%
Employed Part Time
3.3
0.7
5.3
14.9
5.9
9.2
Unemployed
4.0
1.7
3.8
3.4
0.0
1.3
Retired
0.0
0.6
11.8
60.2
91.4
79.8
Homemaker
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Student
49.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Disabled
0.0
0.6
2.1
0.6
0.0
0.2
Volunteer
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
In the Labor Force
50.4%
98.8%
86.1%
39.2%
8.2%
19.7%
Table 10
Employment Status by Age for Adult Females in Jewish Households
Employment Status
Under 35
35-49
50-64
65-74
75+
65+
Employed Full Time
31.4%
47.0%
56.3%
10.0%
0.0%
3.7%
Employed Part Time
9.9
27.0
14.6
4.8
3.1
3.8
Unemployed
5.2
3.9
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.2
Retired
0.0
1.1
18.4
82.2
95.7
90.6
Homemaker
6.4
18.8
5.2
2.0
1.2
1.5
Student
47.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Disabled
0.0
1.1
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Volunteer
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.2
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
In the Labor Force
46.5%
77.9%
72.9%
15.3%
3.1%
7.7%
52
Demographic Profile–Housing Value
espondents in Jewish households in Middlesex who own their homes were asked to estimate
the value of their homes. Housing values are based upon respondents' perceptions and may
not represent actual selling prices. Some respondents have a reasonable idea of the selling prices
of similar homes in their neighborhoods. Some respondents may remember what they paid for
their homes, but are unaware of changes in the housing market. 18% of respondents in
homeowner households were unwilling or unable to provide an estimate of the value of their
homes using the detailed categories queried.
R
| The $372,000 median housing value is above average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to $474,000 in Bergen and $284,000 in Monmouth. The $372,000
compares to $392,000 for all homes (both Jewish-owned and non-Jewish-owned) in Middlesex
as of 2007 and $205,000 for all American homes (both Jewish-owned and non-Jewish-owned)
as of 2007. The comparisons with other Jewish communities should be treated with caution
because, although the data are adjusted for inflation to current dollars, cost of living variations
exist from community to community and housing values in some cities have changed at rates very
different from the consumer price index changes used to adjust for inflation.
| The median housing value is $377,000 in the North, $449,000 in Highland Park/South Edison,
$432,000 in the Central, and $293,000 in the South.
| The median housing value is $467,000 for households with children, $433,000 for households
with only adult children, and $435,000 for non-elderly couple households, compared to $331,000
for non-elderly single households, $318,000 for elderly couple households, and $246,000 for
elderly single households.
Housing Value (Homeowner Households)
53
Demographic Profile–Household Income
espondents in Jewish households in Middlesex were asked their household income before
taxes in 2007. 75% of respondents answered this question using the detailed income
categories queried. The type of bias introduced by the lack of a response from 25% of
respondents is unknown. Not all 25% of respondents refused to answer this question. In some
cases, particularly when an adult child was interviewed, the respondent simply did not know the
household income.
R
| The comparisons with other Jewish communities of median household income should be
treated with caution because, although the data are adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars, cost of
living variations exist from community to community. The comparisons with other Jewish
communities of annual household income by income category should be treated with caution
because the data have not been adjusted for inflation and cost of living variations exist from
community to community.
| The $90,000 median household income is about average among about 50 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to $125,000 in Bergen, $100,000 in Monmouth, $82,000 in
Pittsburgh, and $70,000 in New York. The $90,000 compares to $62,000 nationally, $75,000 for
all households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007, and $51,000 for all
American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2007.
| The $141,000 median household income of households with children is the fourth highest
of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to $169,000 in Bergen, $123,000 in
Monmouth, $112,000 in Pittsburgh, and $101,000 in New York.
| The 44% earning an annual household income of $100,000 and over is the fourth highest of about
30 comparison Jewish communities that have completed studies since 2000 and compares to 52%
in Bergen, 32% in Pittsburgh, and 31%
in New York. The 44% compares to
21% nationally, 35% of all households
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) in
Middlesex as of 2007, and 20% of all
American households (both Jewish and
| The 12% earning an annual
household income under $25,000 is
about average among about 30
comparison Jewish communities that
have completed studies since 2000
and compares to 21% in Pittsburgh
and 8% in Bergen. The 12%
compares to 22% nationally, 14% of
all households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) in Middlesex as of 2007,
and 24% of all American households
(both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of
2007.
Annual Household Income
54
Median Household Income (in thousands)
55
Low Income Households
| The 12% (2,904 households) of households who reported a household income under $25,000
before taxes in 2007 are considered to be low income households.
| 62% of low income households live in the South, 29% live in the Central, 7% live in the North,
and 2% live in Highland Park/South Edison.
| 48% of low income households are elderly single households, 35% are elderly couple
households, 8% are non-elderly single households, 1% are households with children, 1% are
households with only adult children, 1% are non-elderly couple households, and 6% are other
household structures.
| 41% of Jewish respondents in low income households identify as Conservative, 34% identify
as Just Jewish, 20% identify as Reform, and 6% identify as Orthodox.
| 45% of low income households are synagogue members; 32% are Jewish organization
members.
| 52% of low income households did not donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year, 45%
donated under $100, and 3% donated $100-$500.
Poverty Level Households
| The 2.0% (480 households) of households who reported a household income that was below
the Federal poverty levels is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 10.3% in New York and 1.3% in Bergen. The 2.0% compares to 5.0% nationally.
| The 1.2% of persons in Jewish households who live
below the Federal poverty levels compares to 6.7% of all
residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) of Middlesex as of
2007 and 13.0% of all Americans (both Jewish and
| The 3.1% (413 households) of households with elderly
persons who reported a household income that was below
the Federal poverty levels is about average among about 20
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 2.1% in
Bergen. The 3.1% compares to 9.0% nationally.
| The 3.0% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish
households who live below the Federal poverty levels
compares to 8.2% of all residents (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) age 65 and over of Middlesex as of 2007 and
9.5% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 65
and over as of 2007.
56
Federal Poverty Levels
Household
Size
2006
Federal
Poverty
Level
1
$10,400
2
$14,000
3
$15,000
4
$21,200
5
$25,000
Religious Profile–Jewish Identification
ewish respondents in Middlesex were asked whether they considered themselves Orthodox,
Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, or Just Jewish. 7% (1,752 households) of
respondents identify as Orthodox; 35% (8,280 households), Conservative; 29% (6,960
households), Reform; and 29% (7,008 households), Just Jewish.
J
| The 7% Orthodox is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 17% in New York, 12% in Bergen, 9% in Monmouth, and 7% in Pittsburgh. The 7%
compares to 8% nationally.
| The 35% Conservative is the seventh highest of about 50 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 37% in Monmouth, 32% in Pittsburgh, 31% in Bergen, and 25% in New York.
The 35% compares to 25% nationally.
| The 29% Reform is below average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 41% in Pittsburgh, 27% in New York, 26% in Monmouth, and 25% in Bergen. The
29% compares to 35% nationally.
| The 29% Just Jewish is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 31% in New York, 30% in Bergen, 28% in Monmouth, and 18% in Pittsburgh. The
Jewish Identification (Jewish Respondents)
57
Religious Profile–Jewish Identification
| In the North, 2% of respondents identify as Orthodox; 29%, Conservative; 35%, Reform; and
35%, Just Jewish.
| In Highland Park/South Edison, 49% of respondents identify as Orthodox; 24%, Conservative;
| In the Central, 5% of respondents identify as Orthodox; 30%, Conservative; 29%, Reform; and
35%, Just Jewish.
| In the South, 3% of respondents identify as Orthodox; 42%, Conservative; 31%, Reform; and
24%, Just Jewish.
| In households with children, 20% of respondents identify as Orthodox; 22%, Conservative;
| In households who donated $500 and over to the Jewish Federation in the past year, 27% of
respondents identify as Orthodox; 38%, Conservative; 21%, Reform; and 15%, Just Jewish.
Jewish Identification by Age of Respondent (Jewish Respondents)
58
Religious Profile–Practices
verall, 91% of Jewish households in Middlesex contain a member who observes at least one
of the following religious practices: always or usually participate in a Passover Seder, always
or usually light Chanukah candles, always or usually light Sabbath candles, or keep a kosher
home. The 91% is the second highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 93% in Monmouth, 91% in Bergen, 83% in Pittsburgh, and 81% in New York. 96% of
households are involved in Jewish activity in that they either ì observe at least one of these
practices, or í contain a Jewish respondent who attends synagogue services at least once per
year (other than for special occasions), or î are members of a synagogue, Jewish Community
Center, or Jewish organization, or ï donated to a Jewish charity in the past year. The 96% is the
second highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 97% in Monmouth,
96% in Bergen, 91% in Pittsburgh, and 87% in New York.
O
| Among the comparison Jewish communities, Middlesex has the second highest percentage of
households who always or usually light Chanukah candles (84%) and who have a mezuzah on
the front door (83%). It has the third highest percentage of respondents who keep kosher in and
out of the home (12%) and the fourth highest percentage of households who keep a kosher home
(23%). It has the fourth highest percentage of respondents who refrain from using electricity on
the Sabbath (6%). It has the fifth highest percentage of households who always or usually
participate in a Passover Seder (83%) and an average percentage of households who always or
usually light Sabbath candles (25%).
| 15,837 persons live in Jewish households who keep a kosher home, and 9,670 persons in
Jewish households keep kosher in and out of the home (assuming that all persons in households
in which the respondent keeps kosher in and out of the home also keep kosher in and out of the
home). The respondent defined “kosher” for himself/herself.
| Among the comparison Jewish communities, Middlesex has the second lowest percentage of
households who always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home (10%).
Religious Practices
59
Table 11
Religious Practices
Comparison with Other Communities
Percentage Yes
Percentage Always/Usually
Mezuzah on Kosher Passover Chanukah Sabbath Xmas
Front Door Home
Seder
Candles Candles Tree
Community
Year
Middlesex
2008
83%
23%
83%
84%
25%
7%
Bergen
2001
76%
29%
85%
83%
32%
12%
Monmouth
1997
81%
26%
86%
87%
25%
11%
New York
2002
NA
28%
77%
76%
31%
13%
Pittsburgh
2002
NA
19%
75%
70%
25%
NA
Atlantic County
2004
77%
10%
78%
77%
14%
15%
Cincinnati
2008
NA
19%
76%
76%
29%
NA
Denver
2007
NA
13%
57%
66%
19%
NA
Detroit
2005
77%
22%
82%
77%
29%
11%
Hartford
2000
72%
17%
78%
78%
25%
16%
Jacksonville
2002
64%
10%
63%
68%
24%
17%
Las Vegas
2005
55%
5%
50%
64%
11%
21%
Lehigh Valley
2007
68%
11%
70%
73%
22%
21%
Miami
2004
82%
22%
79%
77%
34%
8%
Minneapolis
2004
65%
13%
78%
78%
26%
16%
Portland (ME)
2007
50%
3%
60%
70%
13%
36%
Rhode Island
2002
67%
16%
73%
76%
21%
22%
San Antonio
2007
68%
10%
69%
70%
20%
18%
Sarasota
2001
69%
6%
69%
65%
17%
12%
S Palm Beach
2005
87%
14%
80%
77%
22%
5%
St. Paul
2004
67%
14%
76%
76%
25%
18%
Tidewater
2001
68%
10%
75%
77%
22%
22%
Tucson
2002
58%
11%
61%
68%
17%
18%
Washington
2003
55%
12%
77%
70%
19%
18%
W Palm Beach
2005
83%
9%
79%
76%
17%
10%
Westport
2000
62%
6%
79%
78%
17%
21%
60
Religious Practices by Age of Head of Household
Mezuzah on Front Door
Participate in a Seder
(Always + Usually)
Light Chanukah Candles
(Always + Usually)
Light Sabbath Candles
(Always + Usually)
61
Religious Practices by Age of Head of Household – continued
Keep a Kosher Home
Kosher In/Out of Home
Refrain from Using Electricity
on the Sabbath
Have a Christmas Tree
(Always + Usually + Sometimes)
62
Religious Practices in Households with Children
(Always + Usually or Yes) (Christmas Tree is Always + Usually + Sometimes)
Religious Practices by Trips to Israel
63
| Intermarried households are less likely to observe Jewish religious practices than are in-married
households. (See the “Introduction” section of this Summary Report for definitions of the terms
in-marriage and intermarriage.) For example, 91% of in-married households always or usually light
Chanukah candles, compared to 67% of intermarried households.
Religious Practices by Type of Marriage
Cultural Connections
| 37% of Jewish respondents attended a theater, music or dance program in the past year
because it had Jewish content.
64
Religious Profile–Synagogue Attendance
he 25% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex who never attend synagogue services (or
attend only for special occasions, such as weddings and b’nai mitzvah ceremonies) is about
average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 30% in New York and
23% in each of Pittsburgh, Bergen, and Monmouth. The 25% compares to 40% nationally.
T
| The 22% who attend services once per month or more is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Pittsburgh, 29% in both Bergen and
New York, and 24% in Monmouth. The 22% compares to 24% nationally.
| 20% of male respondents attend services once per month or more, compared to 23% of female
respondents.
| 58% of respondents in synagogue non-member households attend services at least once per
year (other than for special occasions).
| 46% of respondents in synagogue member households attend services once per month or
more, compared to 3% of respondents in synagogue non-member households.
| Respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip (39%) and
respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip (24%) are more likely
to attend services once per month or more than are respondents in households in which no adult
visited Israel (12%).
Synagogue Attendance (Jewish Respondents)
65
Synagogue Attendance by Various Population Subgroups
(Jewish Respondents)
66
Synagogue Attendance by Age of Respondent (Jewish Respondents)
67
Religious Profile–Types of Marriage
ntermarriage has developed into one of the most important issues for the Jewish community
and has clearly reached significant proportions in most American Jewish communities. As a
result, intermarriage must be taken into account in local Jewish community planning. Although
some intermarried couples are contributing significantly to the Jewish community, it is also clear
that when measures of “Jewishness” for intermarried and in-married couples are compared in this
and other community studies, intermarriage is affecting Jewish continuity.
I
Intermarriage rates may be reported based on married couples or individuals. As an illustration,
imagine that two weddings occur. In wedding one, Moshe (a Jew) marries Rachel (also a Jew).
In wedding two, Abraham (a Jew) marries Christine (a non-Jew). Thus, there are two married
couples, one of whom is intermarried. In this illustration, the couples intermarriage rate is 50%.
Another method of calculating an intermarriage rate, however, is to note that there are three Jews
(Moshe, Rachel, and Abraham) and one of the three (Abraham) is married to a non-Jew
(Christine). In this illustration, the individual intermarriage rate is 33%.
| The Middlesex Jewish community contains 16,224 married couples. 84% (13,628 married
couples) of married couples involve in-marriages between two persons born or raised Jewish, 2%
(373 married couples) involve conversionary in-marriages, and 14% (2,223 married couples)
involve intermarriages. (See the “Introduction” section of this Summary Report for definitions of
the terms in-marriage, conversionary in-marriage, and intermarriage.) The individual intermarriage
rate is 7%.
| The 92% of persons in Jewish households who consider themselves Jewish or, in the case
of children, are being raised Jewish is the third highest of about 55 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 92% in Bergen, 90% in Monmouth, 85% in New York, and 78% in
Pittsburgh. The 92% compares to 78% nationally.
Types of Marriage (Couples Rate)
68
| The 14% couples intermarriage rate is the second lowest of about 55 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 36% in Pittsburgh, 22% in New York, and 17% in both Bergen and
Monmouth. The 14% compares to 48% nationally.
| The 26% of married couples in households under age 35 who are intermarried is the fourth
lowest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 59% in Pittsburgh, 32% in
Monmouth, 25% in Bergen, and 24% in New York. The 26% compares to 59% nationally.
| The 27% of married couples in households age 35-49 who are intermarried is the seventh
New York, 24% in Bergen, and 22% in Monmouth. The 27% compares to 58% nationally.
| The 15% of married couples in households age 50-64 who are intermarried is the fifth lowest
of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Pittsburgh, 21% in
New York, 12% in Bergen, and 10% in Monmouth. The 15% compares to 46% nationally.
| The 7% of married couples in households age 65-74 who are intermarried is the eighth lowest
of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 13% in New York, 12% in
Pittsburgh, 11% in Bergen, and 7% in Monmouth. The 7% compares to 24% nationally.
| The 3% of married couples in households age 75 and over who are intermarried is the third
Bergen, 10% in Monmouth, and 6% in New York. The 3% compares to 19% nationally.
| The 5% of married couples in households age 65 and over who are intermarried is the fourth
Bergen, 10% in New York, and 8% in Monmouth.
Geographic/Demographic Profile
| 38% of married couples in the North are intermarried, compared to 20% of married couples in
the Central, 4% in the South, and 2% in Highland Park/South Edison.
| 23% of married couples in households with children, 20% of married couples in non-elderly
couple households, and 17% of married couples in households with only adult children are
intermarried, compared to 4% of married couples in elderly couple households.
Religious Profile
| 27% of married couples in Just Jewish households are intermarried, compared to 15% of
married couples in Reform households, 6% of married couples in Conservative households, and
0% of married couples in Conservative households.
69
Table 12
Intermarriage (Couples Intermarriage Rate)
Community
Year
%
Community
Year
%
Portland (ME)
2007
61%
Harrisburg
1994
33%
San Francisco
2004
55%
Orlando
1993
32%
Seattle
2000
55%
Chicago
2000
30%
Denver
2007
53%
Rochester
1999
30%
Atlanta
2006
50%
St. Petersburg
1994
29%
Las Vegas
2005
48%
Milwaukee
1996
28%
Charlotte
1997
47%
Martin-St. Lucie
1999
27%
Boston
2005
46%
Atlantic County
2004
26%
Tucson
2002
46%
Buffalo
1995
26%
York
1999
46%
St. Louis
1995
25%
Columbus
2001
45%
Hartford
2000
23%
Howard County
1999
45%
Los Angeles
1997
23%
San Diego
2003
44%
Cleveland
1996
23%
Jacksonville
2002
44%
New York
2002
22%
Tidewater
2001
43%
Philadelphia
1997
22%
Washington
2003
41%
Sarasota
2001
20%
Phoenix
2002
40%
Palm Springs
1998
19%
St. Paul
2004
39%
Broward
1997
18%
San Antonio
2007
37%
Bergen
2001
17%
Lehigh Valley
2007
36%
Baltimore
1999
17%
Pittsburgh
2002
36%
Monmouth
1997
17%
Cincinnati
2008
34%
Detroit
2005
16%
Rhode Island
2002
34%
W Palm Beach
2005
16%
Richmond
1994
34%
Miami
2004
16%
Minneapolis
2004
33%
Middlesex
2008
14%
Westport
2000
33%
S Palm Beach
2005
9%
Wilmington
1995
33%
NJPS
2000
48%
70
Types of Marriage by Age of Head of Household
(Couples Rate) (Sample Size of Under 35 is 23)
Individual Intermarriage Rate by Age of Head of Household
(Married Jewish Persons)
71
Membership Profile
| 5% of married couples in synagogue member households are intermarried, compared to 21%
of married couples in synagogue non-member households. 2% of married couples in Jewish
organization member households are intermarried, compared to 21% of married couples in Jewish
organization non-member households.
Experiential Profile
| Married couples in households in which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a child (3%)
and married couples in households in which an adult attended a supplemental school as a child
(14%) are less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in households in which no adult
attended Jewish education as a child (36%).
| Married couples in households in which an adult attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away
camp as a child (7%) are less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in households in
which no adult attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as a child (18%).
| Married couples in households in which an adult participated in a Jewish youth group as a
teenager (8%) are less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in households in which
no adult participated in a Jewish youth group as a teenager (19%).
| Married couples in households in which an adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college
(excluding High Holidays) (3%) are less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in
households in which no adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college (excluding High
Holidays) (20%).
| Married couples in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip (3%) and married
couples in households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip (8%) are less likely to be
intermarried than are married couples in households in which no adult visited Israel (24%).
Philanthropic Profile
| 4% of married couples in households who donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year
are intermarried, compared to 25% of married couples in households not asked to donate.
| 23% of married couples in households who did not donate to the Jewish Federation in the past
year are intermarried, compared to 5% of married couples in households who donated under
$100, 1% of married couples who donated $100-$500, and 4% of married couples who donated
$500 and over.
Conversion and Jews-by-Choice
| The couples conversion rate is calculated by dividing the percentage of conversionary inmarried couples by the total percentage of married couples involving marriages between Jewish
persons and persons not born or raised Jewish (conversionary in-married couples and
intermarried couples). The 14% couples conversion rate is below average among about 50
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 27% in Pittsburgh, 24% in New York, 23% in
Bergen, and 15% in Monmouth.
72
| The 1.4% (728 persons) of Jewish persons in Jewish households who are Jews-by-Choice
is the second lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 2.6% in
Bergen and 1.4% in Monmouth.
Singles Programs
| 20% (1,102 households) of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 were interested
in singles programs in the past year. Included in the 20% are 10% (518 households) of
households who did not attend singles programs. 7% (389 households) of households attended
Jewish programs and 4% (194 households), non-Jewish programs. Thus, many households who
were interested in singles programs did not attend them, and most households who attended
singles programs attended Jewish programs.
| The 20% who were interested in singles programs in the past year is about average among
about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 23% in Monmouth and 11% in
Bergen.
Jewish Internet Dating
| The 21% (1,129 households) of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 who have used
a Jewish Internet dating service at some time is about average among about ten comparison
Jewish communities.
Religion of Children in Jewish Households
| The 33% of children age 0-17 in intermarried households who are being raised Jewish
is below average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 59% in
Bergen, 36% in Pittsburgh, 31% in Monmouth, and 30% in New York. Another 34% of children
age 0-17 in intermarried households are being raised part Jewish. Note that respondents defined
the children in their household as born and raised Jewish, non-Jewish, or part Jewish.
| 87% of Jewish children age 0-17 living in married households are being raised in in-married
households (involving marriages between two persons born or raised Jewish); 4%, in
conversionary in-married households; and 9%, in intermarried households. The 9% of Jewish
children are 0-17 in married households who are being raised in intermarried households
is the fifth lowest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 22% in
Pittsburgh, 11% in Bergen, and 7% in both New York and Monmouth.
| The 84% of children age 0-17 in Jewish households who are being raised Jewish is well
above average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 92% in
Bergen, 85% in Monmouth, 83% in New York, and 67% in Pittsburgh.
73
Membership Profile–Synagogues
verall, 58% of Jewish households in Middlesex are associated with the Jewish community
in that someone in the household is a member of a synagogue, Jewish Community Center
(JCC), or Jewish organization. The 58% is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 63% in Bergen, 62% in both Pittsburgh and Monmouth, and 52%
in New York. The 58% compares to 51% nationally.
O
| According to the Telephone Survey, 44% (10,656 households) of households are current
synagogue members. 39% (9,288 households) of households reported current synagogue
membership in a synagogue located in Middlesex.
| The 44% current synagogue membership is about average among about 55 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 53% in Pittsburgh, 50% in Bergen, 48% in Monmouth, and
43% in New York. The 44% compares to 40% nationally.
| According to the Synagogue Survey, 8,860 households who live in Middlesex (37%) are
members of a synagogue located in Middlesex. The Telephone Survey implies that local
synagogue membership is 2 percentage points higher than that suggested by the Synagogue
Survey.
| The 53% of households with children who are current synagogue members is about average
Pittsburgh, 59% in New York, and 57% in Monmouth. The 53% compares to 55% nationally.
| Current synagogue membership decreases from 45% of households earning an annual income
under $25,000 to 34% of households earning an annual income of $25,000-$50,000 and then
increases to 40% of households earning an annual income of $50,000-$100,000, 47% of
households earning an annual income of $100,000-$200,000, and 54% of households earning
an annual income of $200,000 and over.
| The 16% of intermarried households who are current synagogue members is about average
among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 27% in Pittsburgh, 17% in
Bergen, 16% in New York, and 13% in Monmouth. The 16% compares to 23% nationally.
| 66% of households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 51% of households in
which an adult visited Israel on a general trip are synagogue members, compared to 29% of
households in which no adult visited Israel.
| 12% (2,832 households) of households plan to join a synagogue in the future, which represents
21% of synagogue non-member households.
| Lifetime synagogue membership is defined as the percentage of households who are members
of a synagogue at some time during their adult lives. The 83% lifetime synagogue membership
is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 85% in
Monmouth and 81% in Bergen.
74
Current Synagogue Membership
75
Denomination of Synagogue Membership
| According to the Synagogue Survey, 27% of the 9,467 households who are members of a
synagogue located in Middlesex or neighboring communities are members of an Orthodox
synagogue; 43%, a Conservative synagogue; 18%, a Reform synagogue; and 12%, other
synagogues.
| The 27% membership in Orthodox synagogues is the fourth highest of about 35 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 46% in Monmouth and 28% in Bergen. The 27% compares
to 21% nationally.
| The 43% membership in Conservative synagogues is about average among about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 45% in Bergen and 33% in Monmouth. The
| The 18% membership in Reform synagogues is the lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 26% in Bergen and 21% in Monmouth. The 18% compares to 39%
nationally.
76
Table 13
Current Synagogue Membership
Community
Year
%
Community
Year
%
Cincinnati
2008
60%
Atlantic County
2004
44%
Tidewater
2001
58%
Boston
2005
43%
St. Paul
2004
56%
New York
2002
43%
Essex-Morris
1998
56%
Rhode Island
2002
43%
St. Louis
1995
56%
Chicago
2000
42%
Minneapolis
2004
54%
St. Petersburg
1994
40%
Rochester
1999
54%
Miami
2004
39%
Pittsburgh
2002
53%
Howard County
1999
38%
Hartford
2000
53%
Washington
2003
37%
San Antonio
2007
52%
Philadelphia
1997
37%
Baltimore
1999
52%
Martin-St. Lucie
1999
36%
Cleveland
1996
52%
Los Angeles
1997
34%
Lehigh Valley
2007
51%
Orlando
1993
34%
Detroit
2005
50%
Portland (ME)
2007
33%
Bergen
2001
50%
Atlanta
2006
33%
Columbus
2001
50%
S Palm Beach
2005
33%
Jacksonville
2002
49%
Denver
2007
32%
Charlotte
1997
49%
Tucson
2002
32%
Harrisburg
1994
49%
W Palm Beach
2005
30%
Palm Springs
1998
48%
San Diego
2003
29%
Monmouth
1997
48%
Phoenix
2002
29%
Milwaukee
1996
48%
Broward
1997
27%
Westport
2000
46%
San Francisco
2004
22%
Wilmington
1995
46%
Seattle
2000
21%
Sarasota
2001
45%
Las Vegas
2005
14%
York
1999
45%
NJPS 1
2000
40%
Richmond
1994
45%
1
Middlesex
2008
44%
NJPS 2000 data are for the more
Jewishly-connected sample.
77
Membership Profile–JCC and Jewish Organizations
ewish Community Center Membership. According to the Telephone Survey, 3% (720
households) of Jewish households in Middlesex are current members of a Jewish Community
Center (JCC), including 2% (432 households) who are current members of the JCC of Middlesex
County.
J
| The 2% local JCC membership is the third lowest of about 50 comparison JCCs and
compares to 27% in Monmouth (Deal), 23% in Pittsburgh, 21% in Bergen (Palisades), 14% in
New York, 10% in Bergen (YJCC), and 5% in Monmouth (Western).
| According to the JCC Survey, 1,000 Jewish households who live in Middlesex (4%) are
members of the JCC of Middlesex County. The Telephone Survey implies that local JCC
membership is 2 percentage points lower than that suggested by the JCC Survey.
| The 2% local JCC membership of households with children is the second lowest of about 45
comparison JCCs and compares to 42% in Monmouth (Deal), 33% in Bergen (Palisades), 27%
in Pittsburgh, 21% in New York, 13% in Bergen (YJCC), and 9% in Monmouth (Western).
| The 1% local JCC membership of intermarried households is the third lowest of about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 13% in Pittsburgh, 12% in Bergen (Palisades),
11% in New York, 8% in Monmouth (Deal), 7% in Bergen (YJCC), and 0% in Monmouth
(Western).
| Respondents who are not current members of the JCC of Middlesex County were asked: “What
is the major reason you have not joined the Jewish Community Center of Middlesex County?
Would you say it is distance from your home, cost, quality of the programs, you have no need for
the services offered, or some other reason?” The major reason for not joining the JCC most
commonly reported by respondents in non-member households is no need for the services offered
(40%). 29% of respondents reported distance from home; 8%, lack of information about the JCC;
6%, cost; 4%, lack of time; 2%, too old; and 13%, other reasons.
| 2% of households are members of both a synagogue and a JCC; 42% are synagogue
members but are not JCC members; 1% are JCC members but are not synagogue members; and
55% are neither synagogue nor JCC members.
| The 7% of households who contain a member who participated in or attended a program
at, or sponsored by, the JCC of Middlesex County in the past year is the second lowest of
about 45 comparison JCCs and compares to 45% in Monmouth (Deal), 44% in Bergen
(Palisades), 34% in New York, 21% in Bergen (YJCC), and 7% in Monmouth (Western).
| 31% of households who are not members of the JCC of Middlesex County are members of a
fitness facility or health club (fitness facility). The JCC has a 6% market share of the fitness facility
market among Jewish households. The 6% is the second lowest of about 25 comparison JCCs
and compares to 48% in Bergen (Palisades) and 28% in Bergen (YJCC).
| 15% (3,576 households) of households were members of the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley in
the past. 4% (1,032 households) of households were members of the YM-YWHA 0-5 years ago;
78
Membership Profile–JCC and Jewish Organizations
2% (456 households), 6-9 years ago; and 9% (2,088 households), ten or more years ago. This
facility is currently closed, except for a preschool program, a day camp, and some senior
programming. In December 2008, the name was changed to The Campus for Jewish Life.
eriously Investigate Joining a New YM-YWHA. Respondents in Jewish households in
Middlesex were asked: "If a new YM-YWHA were built in East Brunswick, would you
definitely, probably, probably not, or definitely not seriously investigate joining the new Y?"
S
| 12% (2,880 households) of households would definitely seriously investigate joining a new Y;
24% (5,856 households), probably; 33%, probably not; 28%, definitely not; and 3% don’t know.
In total, 36% (8,736 households) of households would definitely or probably seriously investigate
joining a new Y.
| 51% of the 3,576 households who were members of the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley in the
past would definitely or probably seriously investigate joining a new Y.
ewish Organization Membership. 38% of Jewish households in Middlesex are current
members of a Jewish organization other than a synagogue or a Jewish Community Center,
such as B’nai B’rith or Hadassah. The 38% is the seventh highest of about 40 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 36% in both Bergen and Monmouth, 29% in Pittsburgh, and 20%
in New York. The 38% compares to 25% nationally.
J
Definitely or Probably Seriously Investigate
Joining a New YM-YWHA
79
Feel Part of the Jewish Community
ewish respondents in Middlesex were asked: “How much do you feel like you are part of the
Middlesex County Jewish community? Would you say very much, somewhat, not very much,
or not at all?”
J
| The 50% who feel very much or somewhat part of the Middlesex Jewish community (Jewish
community) is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 65% in both Pittsburgh and New York and 60% in Bergen.
| The percentage of respondents who feel very much or somewhat part of the Jewish community
is 77% in Highland Park/South Edison, 53% in the South, 45% in the Central, and 40% in the
North.
| The percentage of respondents who feel very much or somewhat part of the Jewish community
is 53% of respondents under age 35, 42% of respondents age 35-49, 46% of respondents age
50-64, 52% of respondents age 65-74, and 57% of respondents age 75 and over.
| 57% of respondents in in-married households feel very much or somewhat part of the Jewish
community, compared to 20% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households.
Feel Part of the Middlesex Jewish Community (Jewish Respondents)
80
Jewish Education of Adults–Formal
n total, 74% of born or raised Jewish adults (age 18 and over) in Jewish households in
Middlesex received some formal Jewish education as children. The 74% is about average
Monmouth, 76% in Pittsburgh, and 65% in New York. The 74% compares to 73% nationally.
I
| 89% of born or raised Jewish adult males received some formal Jewish education as children,
compared to 61% of born or raised Jewish adult females. Born or raised Jewish adult females in
each age group were less likely to receive some formal Jewish education as children than were
born or raised Jewish adult males.
| The 12% who attended a Jewish day school as children is about average among about 40
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 24% in Bergen, 19% in New York, 11% in
Monmouth, and 10% in Pittsburgh. The 12% compares to 12% nationally.
| 93% of born or raised Jewish adults in Orthodox households, 79% of born or raised Jewish
adults in Conservative households, and 72% of born or raised Jewish adults in Reform
households received some formal Jewish education as children, compared to 63% of born or
raised Jewish adults in Just Jewish households.
| 75% of born or raised Jewish adults in in-married households, 83% of born or raised Jewish
adults in conversionary in-married households, and 76% of born or raised Jewish adults in
intermarried households received some formal Jewish education as children.
Formal Jewish Education Received as Children
by Born or Raised Jewish Adults
81
Jewish Education of Adults–Formal
| On most measures of Jewish identity, attendance at a Jewish day school or supplemental
school as a child is shown to be positively correlated with adult behaviors, although we cannot
attribute cause and effect to these relationships.
Born or Raised Jewish Adults Who Received
Some Formal Jewish Education as Children
by Age and Sex
Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult
Received Some Formal Jewish Education as a Child
82
Jewish Education of Adults–Informal
s more concerns are raised about Jewish continuity, interest has been sparked in identifying
factors which may be related to encouraging Jews to lead a “Jewish life.” Thus, three types
of informal Jewish education were examined for born or raised Jewish adults in Jewish
households in Middlesex. Overall, 24% of born or raised Jewish adults attended or worked at a
Jewish sleep away camp as children, 37% participated in a Jewish youth group as teenagers, and
25% participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college (excluding the High Holidays).
A
| The 24% who attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as children is the fifth
Bergen, and 19% in Monmouth. The 24% compares to 31% nationally.
| The 37% who participated in a Jewish youth group as teenagers is below average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 36% in both Bergen and Monmouth
and 33% in New York. The 37% compares to 38% nationally.
| The 25% who participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college is about average among about
25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 31% in Bergen and 28% in Monmouth. The
.
Born or Raised Jewish Adults Who Participated
in Informal Jewish Education as Children by Age
83
| On most measures of Jewish identity, all three types of informal Jewish education are shown
to be positively correlated with adult behaviors, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to
these relationships.
Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Attended or Worked
at a Jewish Sleep Away Camp as a Child
Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Participated
in a Jewish Youth Group as a Teenager
84
Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Participated in Hillel/Chabad
While in College (Excluding High Holidays)
85
Internet Usage
| 48% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past year,
including 17% who used the Internet for information about the Middlesex Jewish community,
which, in turn, includes 8% who visited the Jewish Federation web site
(www.jewishmiddlesex.org). The 48% who used the Internet for Jewish-related information
in the past year is above average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 39% in Bergen and 37% in New York. The 48% compares to 40% nationally.
| 70% of respondents in households with children, 66% of respondents in non-elderly couple
households, and 55% of respondents in households with only adult children used the Internet for
Jewish-related information in the past year, compared to 46% of respondents in non-elderly single
households, 40% of respondents in elderly couple households, and 22% of respondents in elderly
single households.
Adult Jewish Education
| The 28% of Jewish respondents who attended an adult Jewish education program or class
in the past year is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 32% in Bergen. The 28% compares to 24% nationally.
| 32% of respondents in in-married households attended an adult Jewish education program or
class in the past year, compared to 8% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households.
Used the Internet for Jewish-Related Information in the Past Year
(Jewish Respondents)
86
Jewish Education of Children–Preschool/Child Care
ccording to the Telephone Survey, 38% (899 children) of Jewish children age 0-5 (excluding
Jewish children age 5 who already attend kindergarten) in Middlesex attend a Jewish
preschool/child care program; 22%, a non-Jewish preschool/child care program; and 39% do not
attend a preschool/child care program. The 38% who attend a Jewish preschool/child care
program is above average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
44% in Pittsburgh, 42% in Monmouth, 41% in New York, and 34% in Bergen. The 38% compares
to 19% nationally. 27% (424 children) of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 0-5 attend a Jewish
preschool/child care program; 30%, a non-Jewish preschool/child care program; and 43% do not
attend a preschool/child care program.
A
| The Jewish preschool/child care market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of
Jewish children age 0-5 in a preschool/child care program who attend a Jewish preschool/child
care program. The 63% market share is above average among about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 76% in Monmouth and 58% in Bergen. The 63% compares to 36%
nationally.
| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 628 Jewish children age 0-5 attend a Jewish
preschool/child care program.
| A total of 2,340 Jewish children age 0-5 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who already attend
kindergarten) live in Middlesex. Thus, according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 27% of Jewish
children age 0-5 attend a Jewish preschool/child care program.
| The 27% according to the Jewish Institutions Survey is just outside the margin of error of the
38% according to the Telephone Survey.
Preschool/Child Care Program Currently Attended
by Jewish Children Age 0-5
87
ccording to the Telephone Survey, 48% (1,711 children) of Jewish children age 5-12
(excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend kindergarten) in Middlesex attend
a Jewish day school; 1%, a non-Jewish private school; and 51%, a public school. 20% (456
children) of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-12 attend a Jewish day school; 2%, a non-Jewish
private school; and 79%, a public school.
A
| The 48% who attend a Jewish day school is the highest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 41% in Bergen and 27% in both Monmouth and Pittsburgh. The
48% compares to 25% nationally. However, note that over one-third of the Jewish children age
5-12 in Middlesex are Orthodox, unlike in most comparison Jewish communities, and that 20%
of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-12 attend a Jewish day school.
| The 1% who attend a non-Jewish private school is the second lowest of about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 13% in Pittsburgh, 3% in Bergen, and 2% in
Monmouth. The 1% compares to 10% nationally. Note that 2% of non-Orthodox Jewish children
age 5-12 attend a non-Jewish private school.
| The 51% who attend a public school is the third lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 72% in Monmouth, 59% in Pittsburgh, and 56% in Bergen. The
51% compares to 66% nationally. Note that 79% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-12 attend
a public school.
| The Jewish day school market share (market share) for Jewish children age 5-12 is defined as
the percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 in a private school who attend a Jewish day school.
The 98% market share is the second highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 94% in Monmouth, 93% in Bergen, and 68% in Pittsburgh. The 98% compares to
72% nationally. Note that the market share for non-Orthodox Jewish children age 5-12 is 93%.
| According to the Jewish Day School Survey, 470 Jewish children age 5-12 attend a Jewish day
school.
| A total of 3,588 Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet
attend kindergarten) live in Middlesex. Thus, according to the Jewish Day School Survey, 13%
of Jewish children age 5-12 attend a Jewish day school.
| The 13% according to the Jewish Day School Survey is not within the margin of error of the
48% according to the Telephone Survey. Why the disparity between the Telephone Survey and
the Jewish Day School Survey? Not all potential respondents cooperated with the Telephone
Survey. It is likely that households with Jewish children who attend a Jewish day school
constituted a disproportionately high percentage of households who responded to the Telephone
Survey. In addition, at least some of the Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a Jewish day school
do not attend a Jewish day school located in Middlesex or the neighboring communities surveyed.
Finally, the estimate of the number of Jewish children age 5-12 may be too high.
88
Seriously Investigate Sending Jewish Children to Jewish Day School
| 28% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 currently have a Jewish child who attends
a Jewish day school; 5% sent a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the past; 2% (households
with Jewish preschool age children) will definitely send a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in
the future; 6% (households with Jewish school age children) seriously investigated sending a
Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the past; 11% (households with Jewish preschool age
children) will seriously investigate sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the future; 37%
(households with Jewish school age children) did not seriously investigate sending a Jewish child
to a Jewish day school in the past; and 12% (households with Jewish preschool age children) will
not seriously investigate sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the future.
| The 50% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 who did not or will not seriously
investigate sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school are not in the Jewish day school
market. The 50% is below average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 56% in Monmouth and 45% in Bergen.
Seriously Investigate Sending Jewish Children Age 0-17 to Jewish Day School
(Households with Jewish Children Age 0-17)
89
Major Reasons for Not Sending Jewish Children to a Jewish Day School
| Respondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 (none of whom currently attend a
Jewish day school, have attended in the past, or will definitely attend in the future) were asked the
major reasons they did not, will not, or might not send their Jewish children to a Jewish day
school. The major reasons most commonly reported are tuition cost (42%), belief in public
schools/ethnically mixed environment (36%), school is too religious for family/family is not religious
(22%), quality of other private or public schools (10%), have a special needs child (6%), quality
of education at Jewish day schools (5%), distance from home (4%), curriculum issues (4%), and
intermarriage (3%).
| The 42% who reported tuition cost is well above average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 38% in Monmouth and 20% in Bergen.
| The 36% who reported belief in public schools/ethnically mixed environment is well above
average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 44% in Bergen and
16% in Monmouth.
| The 22% who reported school is too religious for family/family is not religious is the
highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 19% in Bergen and 13%
in Monmouth.
| The 10% who reported quality of other private or public schools is about average among
about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 9% in Bergen and 5% in Monmouth.
| The 6% who reported have a special needs child is the highest of about 30 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 2% in Monmouth and 0% in Bergen.
| The 5% who reported quality of education at Jewish day schools is about average among
about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 7% in Monmouth and 5% in Bergen.
| The 4% who reported distance from home is the third lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish
| The 3% who reported intermarriage is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 4% in both Bergen and Monmouth.
90
Jewish Education of Children–School Age Children
ewish Children Age 5-12 (Pre-B’nai Mitzvah). According to the Telephone Survey, 81%
(2,910 children) of Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet
attend kindergarten) in Middlesex currently attend formal Jewish education, including 33% at a
supplemental school and 48% at a Jewish day school. 72% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age
5-12 currently attend formal Jewish education, including 52% at a supplemental school and 20%
at a Jewish day school.
J
| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 1,447 Jewish children age 5-12 attend a
supplemental school at a synagogue located in Middlesex or neighboring communities and 470
children at a Jewish day school.
| A total of 3,588 Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet
attend kindergarten) live in Middlesex. Thus, according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 53%
(1,917 children) of Jewish children age 5-12 currently attend formal Jewish education, including
40% who attend a supplemental school at a synagogue and 13%, a Jewish day school. 47%
(1,671 children) of Jewish children age 5-12 do not currently attend formal Jewish education.
| The 53% who currently attend formal Jewish education according to the Jewish Institutions
Survey is not within the margin of error of the 81% according to the Telephone Survey.
| The 53% of Jewish children age 5-12 who currently attend formal Jewish education according
to the Jewish Institutions Survey is well below average among about 30 comparison Jewish
ewish Children Age 13-17 (Post-B’nai Mitzvah). According to the Telephone Survey, 51%
(1,244 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 in Middlesex currently attend formal Jewish
education, including 20% at a supplemental school and 31% at a Jewish day school. 30% of nonOrthodox Jewish children age 13-17 currently attend formal Jewish education, including 28% at
a supplemental school and 2% at a Jewish day school.
J
| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 633 Jewish children age 13-17 attend a
supplemental school at a synagogue and 161 children, a Jewish day school.
| A total of 2,444 Jewish children age 13-17 live in Middlesex. Thus, according to the Jewish
Institutions Survey, 33% (794 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 currently attend formal
Jewish education, including 26% who attend a supplemental school at a synagogue and 7%, a
Jewish day school. 68% (1,650 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 do not currently attend
formal Jewish education.
| The 33% who currently attend formal Jewish education according to the Jewish Institutions
Survey is not within the margin of error of the 51% according to the Telephone Survey.
| The 33% of Jewish children age 13-17 who currently attend formal Jewish education according
to the Jewish Institutions Survey is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
91
| 86% of Jewish children age 13-17 have received some formal Jewish education (either
currently attend or have attended in the past), including 43% at a supplemental school and 43%
at a Jewish day school. The interest in this age group is that, since very few Jewish children are
enrolled in formal Jewish education for the first time at age 13 or older, it suggests that 14% of
Jewish children in Middlesex will not receive any formal Jewish education.
Table 14
Jewish Children Age 5-12
Who Currently Attend Formal Jewish Education
Community
Year
%
Community
Year
%
Westport
2000
96%
Wilmington
1995
59%
Rhode Island
2002
91%
Richmond
1994
58%
Milwaukee
1996
83%
San Antonio
2007
57%
Sarasota
2001
82%
S Palm Beach
2005
56%
Charlotte
1997
82%
Atlantic County
2004
56%
Lehigh Valley
2007
80%
Miami
2004
56%
Monmouth
1997
79%
Washington
2003
56%
Tidewater
2001
74%
Middlesex
2008
53%
Bergen
2001
73%
Tucson
2002
53%
Hartford
2000
73%
Orlando
1993
50%
Martin-St. Lucie
1999
73%
W Palm Beach
2005
46%
Minneapolis
2004
71%
Las Vegas
2005
45%
York
1999
67%
Broward
1997
45%
St. Paul
2004
66%
Portland (ME)
2007
43%
Jacksonville
2002
66%
St. Petersburg
1994
40%
Harrisburg
1994
66%
Rochester
1999
62%
Note: Data are based upon the Jewish
Institutions Survey.
hy the disparities between the Telephone Survey and the Jewish Institutions Survey? Not
all potential respondents cooperated with the Telephone Survey in Middlesex. It is likely
that households with Jewish children who attend Jewish education constituted a disproportionately
high percentage of households who responded to the Telephone Survey. In addition, at least
some of the Jewish children who attend Jewish education do not attend at a Jewish institution
located in Middlesex or the neighboring communities surveyed. Finally, the estimate of the
number of Jewish children may be too high.
W
92
Jewish Children Age 13-17 Who Ever Attended
Formal Jewish Education
Non-Orthodox Jewish Children Age 13-17 Who Ever Attended
Formal Jewish Education
93
Jewish Education of Children–Informal
T
hree types of informal Jewish education of Jewish children in Middlesex are addressed by
this study: Jewish day camp, Jewish sleep away camp, and Jewish teenage youth group.
Jewish Day Camp
| According to the Telephone Survey, 29% (2,016 children) of Jewish children age 3-17 attended
or worked at a Jewish day camp this past summer (the summer of 2007); 22%, a non-Jewish day
camp; and 50% did not attend or work at a day camp. The 29% who attended or worked at a
Jewish day camp this past summer is above average among about 25 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 25% in both Bergen and Monmouth. The 29% compares to 27%
nationally.
| The Jewish day camp market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of Jewish
children age 3-17 attending or working at a day camp this past summer who attended or worked
at a Jewish day camp. The 57% market share is about average among about 25 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 61% in Bergen and 41% in Monmouth. The 57% compares
to 56% nationally.
| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 496 Jewish children age 3-17 attended or worked
at a day camp this past summer at a synagogue located in Middlesex or neighboring communities;
255 children, at a JCC; and 150 children, at an independent Jewish day camp.
Institutions Survey, 13% (901 children) of Jewish children age 3-17 attended or worked at a
Jewish day camp this past summer.
| The 13% according to the Jewish Institutions Survey is not within the margin of error of the
29% according to the Telephone Survey. Why the disparity between the Telephone Survey and
the Jewish Institutions Survey? The disparity may be attributable to Jewish children age 3-17 who
attended Jewish day camps that operate outside Middlesex and the neighboring communities
surveyed as well as to respondents who interpreted “Jewish day camp” to mean a camp with
mostly Jewish campers (despite our use of the phrase a Jewish camp with religious services or
significant Jewish content). Finally, the estimate of the number of Jewish children age 3-17 may
be too high.
Jewish Sleep Away Camp
| 17% (1,011 children) of Jewish children age 6-17 attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away
camp this past summer (the summer of 2007); 3%, a non-Jewish sleep away camp; and 80% did
not attend or work at a sleep away camp.
| The 17% who attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp this past summer is about
5% in Monmouth.
| The Jewish sleep away camp market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of
Jewish children age 6-17 attending or working at a sleep away camp this past summer who
attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp. The 86% market share is the second highest
of about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 70% in Bergen and 57% in
Monmouth.
94
Jewish Children Age 3-17 Who Attended or Worked
at a Day Camp This Past Summer
Jewish Children Age 6-17 Who Attended or Worked
at a Sleep Away Camp This Past Summer
95
Jewish Teenage Youth Group
| According to the Telephone Survey, 41% (997 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 regularly
participate (participate) in a Jewish teenage youth group.
| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 886 Jewish children age 13-17 participate in a
Jewish teenage youth group at a synagogue and 217 children participate in an independent
Jewish teenage youth group.
Institutions Survey, 45% (1,103 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 participate in a Jewish
teenage youth group, including 36% who participate in a synagogue youth group and 9% in an
independent youth group.
| The 45% who participate in a Jewish teenage youth group according to the Jewish Institutions
Survey is within the margin of error of the 41% according to the Telephone Survey.
| The 45% according to the Jewish Institutions Survey is well above average among about 30
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 45% in Monmouth and 23% in Bergen.
***********************************************************************************************************
verall Involvement in Jewish Education. 65% of Jewish children age 0-17 in Middlesex
are currently involved in some type of formal or informal Jewish education in that they:
ì currently attend a Jewish preschool/child care program, or
í currently attend a Jewish day school, or
î currently attend a supplemental school, or
ï attended or worked at a Jewish day camp this past summer, or
ð attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp this past summer, or
ñ currently participate in a Jewish teenage youth group.
O
| 54% of non-Orthodox Jewish children age 0-17 are currently involved in some type of formal
or informal Jewish education.
96
espondents in Jewish households in Middlesex were asked whether they are very familiar,
somewhat familiar, or not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex
County and other Jewish agencies. Overall, a significant portion of the Middlesex Jewish
community is not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation and other Jewish agencies, ranging
from the 45% of respondents who are not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation to the 76%
who are not at all familiar with the Jewish Community Center of Middlesex County.
R
| 15% of respondents are very familiar, 40% are somewhat familiar, and 45% are not at all
familiar with the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County (Federation). The 15% very
familiar is below average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 18%
| 8% of respondents are very familiar, 23% are somewhat familiar, and 70% are not at all familiar
with the Jewish Family and Vocational Service (JFVS). The 8% very familiar is the fifth lowest
of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 10% in Monmouth and 9% in
Bergen.
with Rutgers Hillel (Hillel). The 7% very familiar is about average among five comparison Jewish
communities.
with the YM-YWHA of Raritan Valley (YM-YWHA). The 7% very familiar is the fourth lowest of
about 40 comparison JCCs and compares to 46% in Monmouth (Deal), 38% in Bergen
(Palisades), 22% in Bergen (YJCC), 5% in Monmouth (Western), and 4% in Middlesex (JCC).
The YM-YWHA is treated as a Jewish Community Center (JCC) for purposes of comparison with
other Jewish communities. Note that the YM-YWHA only operated a preschool, a day camp, and
some senior programming at the time of the study. In December 2008, the name was changed
to The Campus for Jewish Life.
with the Jewish Community Center of Middlesex County (JCC). The 4% very familiar is the
lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs and compares to 46% in Monmouth (Deal), 38% in Bergen
(Palisades), 22% in Bergen (YJCC), 7% in Middlesex (YM-YWHA), and 5% in Monmouth
(Western).
| 70% of respondents are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of the agencies queried.
The 70% is the fourth lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 87%
97
Familiarity with Jewish Agencies (Respondents)
98
Jewish Day Schools–Familiarity
espondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 in Middlesex were asked whether
they are very familiar, somewhat familiar, or not at all familiar with three Jewish day schools
in Middlesex.
R
| 23% of respondents in households with Jewish children are very familiar, 42% are somewhat
familiar, and 35% are not at all familiar with the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan
Valley (Schechter). The 23% very familiar is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish
day schools and compares to 22% in Middlesex (RPRY) and 13% in Middlesex (MAYHS).
familiar, and 57% are not at all familiar with Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva (RPRY). The 22%
very familiar is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish day schools and compares to
23% in Middlesex (Schechter) and 13% in Middlesex (MAYHS).
familiar, and 62% are not at all familiar with the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School (MAYHS).
The 13% very familiar is well below average among about 45 comparison Jewish day schools and
compares to 23% in Middlesex (Schechter) and 22% in Middlesex (RPRY).
Familiarity with Jewish Day Schools
(Respondents in Households with Jewish Children)
99
espondents in Jewish households in Middlesex who are very familiar or somewhat familiar
with the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County and other Jewish agencies were
asked to provide perceptions of those agencies on a scale of excellent, good, fair, and poor. Many
respondents who are only somewhat familiar, and some respondents who are very familiar, with
an agency were unable to provide a perception of that agency. The majority (74%-87%) of
respondents have positive (excellent and good) perceptions of the Jewish Federation and other
Jewish agencies.
R
| 23% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation
of Greater Middlesex County (Federation) perceive it as excellent; 59%, good; 15%, fair; and 3%,
poor. The 23% excellent perceptions is below average among about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 22% in Bergen and 19% in Monmouth.
| 24% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Family and
Vocational Service (JFVS) perceive it as excellent; 58%, good; 13%, fair; and 5%, poor. The
24% excellent perceptions is the third lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
| 32% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with Rutgers Hillel (Hillel)
perceive it as excellent; 55%, good; 12%, fair; and 1%, poor. The 32% excellent perceptions is
the highest of four comparison Jewish communities.
| 12% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the YM-YWHA of Raritan
Valley (YM-YWHA) perceive it as excellent; 62%, good; 15%, fair; and 11%, poor. The 12%
excellent perceptions is the second lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs and compares to 47%
in Bergen (Palisades), 33% in Monmouth (Deal), 24% in Bergen (YJCC), 16% in Middlesex (JCC),
and 10% in Monmouth (Western).
The YM-YWHA is treated as a Jewish Community Center (JCC) for purposes of comparison with
other Jewish communities. Note that the YM-YWHA only operated a preschool, a day camp, and
some senior programming at the time of the study. In December 2008, the name was changed
to The Campus for Jewish Life.
| 16% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with Jewish Community
Center of Middlesex County (JCC) perceive it as excellent; 59%, good; 21%, fair; and 5%, poor.
The 16% excellent perceptions is the fourth lowest of about 40 comparison JCCs and compares
to 47% in Bergen (Palisades), 33% in Monmouth (Deal), 24% in Bergen (YJCC), 12% in
Middlesex (YM-YWHA), and 10% in Monmouth (Western).
100
Perception of Jewish Agencies
(Respondents Who Are Very Familiar or Somewhat Familiar with the Agency)
101
espondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 in Middlesex who are very familiar
or somewhat familiar with three Jewish day schools in Middlesex were asked to provide
perceptions of those schools on a scale of excellent, good, fair, and poor.
R
| 17% of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very familiar or somewhat
familiar with the Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley (Schechter) perceive it as
excellent; 66%, good; 17%, fair; and 1%, poor. The 17% excellent perceptions is the fifth lowest
of about 40 comparison Jewish day schools and compares to 18% in Middlesex (RPRY) and 11%
in Middlesex (MAYHS).
familiar with Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva (RPRY) perceive it as excellent; 53%, good; 23%,
fair; and 6%, poor. The 18% excellent perceptions is the seventh lowest of about 40 comparison
Jewish day schools and compares to 17% in Middlesex (Schechter) and 11% in Middlesex
(MAYHS).
familiar with Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School (MAYHS) perceive it as excellent; 37%, good;
41%, fair; and 12%, poor. The 11% excellent perceptions is the lowest of about 40 comparison
Jewish day schools and compares to 18% in Middlesex (RPRY) and 17% in Middlesex
(Schechter).
Perception of Jewish Day Schools
(Respondents in Households with Jewish Children Who Are
Very or Somewhat Familiar with the School)
102
Social Service Needs
n total, 21% (5,016 households) of Jewish households in Middlesex contain an adult member
or a Jewish or part Jewish child who has a physical, mental, or other health condition (healthlimited member) that has lasted for six months or more and limits or prevents employment,
educational opportunities, or daily activities. The respondent defined “physical, mental, or other
health condition” for himself/herself. The 21% is the fourth highest of about 40 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 14% in both Bergen and Monmouth. The 21% compares to 13%
nationally.
I
| Included in the 21% of households containing a health-limited member are 7% (1,752
households) in which the member needs daily assistance as a result of his/her condition. The
7% is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 5% in
Bergen and 4% in Monmouth. The 7% compares to 4% nationally.
| 1% (420 adults) of adults in Jewish households are disabled and consequently unable to work.
| 0.2% (48 households) of households contain a disabled adult child (age 18 and over) who
is unable to work and lives at home with his/her parents or other adults.
| 6% (1,416 households) of households contain an adult who needs assistance with one or more
activities of daily living (grocery shopping, doing laundry, managing medicines, preparing meals,
bathing or showering, getting around inside the home, taking care of appearance, dressing,
managing money, using the bathroom, and eating); 5% (1,248 households) contain an adult who
needs assistance with two or more activities of daily living.
| 9% (1,212 households) of households with elderly persons contain an adult who needs
assistance with one or more activities of daily living; 8% (1,052 households) contain an adult who
needs assistance with two or more activities of daily living.
hile the best indicators of social service needs include such factors as age, household
structure, and household income, respondents in Jewish households in Middlesex were
asked directly about their need for a variety of social services in the past year. When respondents
reported that their households needed a service, they were asked whether the service had been
received. If the households received the service, the respondents were asked whether the service
had been received from a Jewish source (Jewish help) or a non-Jewish source (other help). In
examining these results, it should be noted that some respondents may feel uneasy about
admitting the need for some of these services. Thus, it is likely that this study underestimates the
actual need for social services in the past year.
W
| The 7% (1,608 households) of households who needed marital, family, or personal
counseling (counseling) in the past year is the fifth lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 13% in Bergen, 10% in Monmouth, and 7% in New York.
| The 17% (4,152 households) of households who needed help in coordinating services for
an elderly or disabled person (coordinating services) in the past year is the second highest of
about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 12% in Bergen.
103
| The 2% (408 households) of households who needed financial assistance in the past year
compares with 3% in Detroit and 2% in both the Lehigh Valley and San Antonio, the only
comparison Jewish communities for which this measure is available.
| The 11% (1,331 households) of households with adults age 18-64 who needed help in finding
a job or choosing an occupation (job counseling) in the past year is about average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 10% in both Bergen and Monmouth.
| The 11% (452 households) of households with Jewish children age 0-17 who needed
programs for Jewish children with learning disabilities or other special needs, such as
developmental disabilities (learning disabled programs), in the past year is about average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 12% in Bergen and 9% in Monmouth.
| Most households who received social services in the past year received them from non-Jewish
sources.
Social Services for the Elderly
| The 14% (1,905 households) of households with elderly persons who needed in-home health
care in the past year is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 17% in Monmouth and 12% in Bergen. The 14% compares to 15% nationally.
| The 13% (1,718 households) of households with elderly persons who needed senior
transportation in the past year is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 11% in Bergen and 10% in Monmouth.
| The 4% (519 households) of households with elderly persons who needed home-delivered
meals in the past year is above average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and
| The 3% (453 households) of households with elderly persons who needed adult day care in
the past year is the fifth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
2% in both Bergen and Monmouth.
| The 3% (373 households) of households with elderly persons who needed nursing home care
to 4% in Monmouth and 3% in Bergen. The 3% compares to 6% nationally.
| The 3% (346 households) of households with elderly persons who needed an assisted living
facility in the past year is about average among about ten comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 3% in Monmouth.
| Most households with elderly persons who received social services for the elderly in the past
year received them from non-Jewish sources.
104
Unmet Needs
| 558 households with adults age 18-64 had unmet needs for job counseling in the past year;
456 households, for coordinating services; 120 households, for financial assistance; 110
households with Jewish children age 0-17, for learning disabled programs; and 24 households,
for counseling;
| 133 households with elderly persons had unmet needs for senior transportation in the past
year; 93 households, for in-home health care; 80 households, for an assisted living facility; 67
households, for adult day care; 27 households, for home-delivered meals; and no households,
for nursing home care.
Households Who Care for Relatives Who Live Outside the Respondent’s Home
| 12% of households in which the respondent is age 40 or over have an elderly relative who lives
outside the respondent’s home and who in some way depends upon the household for care
(caregiver households). The respondent defined “care” for himself/herself.
| The 12% of caregiver households is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 14% in Bergen.
| Included in the 12% of caregiver households are 5% in which the elderly relative lives in
Middlesex, 5% in which the elderly relative lives outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes, and 2%
in which the elderly relative lives further than 90 minutes from Middlesex.
| 7% of households in which the respondent is age 40 or over care for elderly relatives who live
in their own home; 1%, in an independent living facility; 2%, in an assisted living facility; and 2%,
in a nursing home.
| 24% of households with children in which the respondent is age 40 or over are caregiver
households. The adults in these households, who have been called the sandwich generation,
have the responsibility to care for both minor children at home and elderly relatives who live
outside their home. The 24% is the second highest of about 20 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 13% in Bergen.
Local Adult Children
| 30% of households in which the respondent is age 75 or over have at least one adult child who
has established his/her own home in Middlesex; 48% have adult children who have established
their own homes outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes; 19% have adult children who have
established their own homes further than 90 minutes from Middlesex; and 4% have no adult
children who have established their own homes.
| The 30% of households in which the respondent is age 75 or over with local adult children is
the fifth lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 46% in Bergen,
44% in Pittsburgh, and 41% in Monmouth. However, note that the 30% does not include the 48%
of households with adult children outside Middlesex but within 90 minutes of Middlesex.
105
Need for Social Services in the Past Year
* Of households with Jewish children age 0-17
** Of households with adults age 18-64
106
Need for Elderly Social Services in the Past Year
in Households with Elderly Persons
Disposition of Need for Selected Social Services
in the Past Year
* Of households with adults age 18-64
** Of households with elderly persons
107
Households with Adults Who Need Assistance
with Activities of Daily Living
Households Who Care for an Elderly Relative
(Households in Which the Respondent Is Age 40 or Over)
108
P referen ce fo r Jew ish-S po nso red A d u lt C a re F a cilities
ewish respondents age 40 and over in Middlesex were asked whether they would very much
prefer, somewhat prefer, have no preference for, or rather not use Jewish-sponsored adult
care facilities if they or, in the case of respondents under age 60, an elderly relative needed senior
housing or a nursing home.
J
| The 58% who would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities is about average
among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 60% in Bergen.
| Among respondents age 40 and over, 96% of Orthodox Jews and 70% of Conservative Jews
would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities, compared to 52% of Reform Jews
and 41% of the Just Jewish. 28% of the Just Jewish would have no preference.
| 61% of respondents age 40 and over in in-married households would very much prefer
Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities, compared to 22% of Jewish respondents in intermarried
households. 48% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households would have no preference.
| 71% of respondents age 40 and over in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish
trip and 63% of respondents age 40 and over in households in which an adult visited Israel on a
general trip would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities, compared to 48% of
respondents age 40 and over in households in which no adult visited Israel.
| 50% of respondents age 40 and over in households who did not donate to the Jewish
Federation in the past year would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities,
compared to 64% of respondents in households who donated under $100, 69% of respondents
in households who donated $100-$500, and 77% of respondents in households who donated
$500 and over.
Preference for Jewish-Sponsored Adult Care
Facilities (Jewish Respondents Age 40 and Over)
109
Israel–Visits
O
verall, 54% of Jewish households in Middlesex contain an adult or a Jewish or part Jewish
child (member) who visited Israel.
| The 54% in which a member visited Israel is well above average among about 35 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 62% in Bergen and 47% in Monmouth.
| The 24% in which a member visited Israel on a Jewish trip is about average among about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 26% in Bergen and 24% in Monmouth. The
29% in which a member visited Israel on a general trip is the seventh highest of about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 36% in Bergen and 24% in Monmouth.
Trips to Israel by Jewish Children
| 6% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a Jewish
trip and 13%, on a general trip. In total, 18% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have
sent a Jewish child on a trip to Israel. The 18% is the fifth highest of about 40 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Bergen, 18% in Monmouth, and 10% in Pittsburgh.
The 6% who have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a Jewish trip is about average among about
30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 8% in Bergen and 7% in Monmouth. The
13% who have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a general trip is the fourth highest of about 30
| 18% (765 households) of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish
child/teenager on a trip to Israel in the past, 20% (841 households) will definitely send a Jewish
teenager on a trip to Israel in the future, 37% (1,567 households) will seriously investigate sending
a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel, 9% (372 households) don’t know if they will seriously
investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel, and 16% (679 households) will not
seriously investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel. The 16% who will not
seriously investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel is about average among
about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 19% in Bergen. Note that the
comparisons with other Jewish communities need to be examined in light of the events occurring
in Israel at the time of each study.
Correlation of Jewish Behaviors with Trips to Israel
| This study shows that having visited Israel, particularly on a Jewish trip, has a significant
positive correlation with levels of religious practice, membership, philanthropy, and other
measures of “Jewishness,” although we cannot attribute cause and effect to this relationship.
Thus, for example, the graph at the bottom of the next page shows that 66% of households in
which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 51% of households in which an adult visited
Israel on a general trip are synagogue members, compared to 29% of households in which no
adult visited Israel.
(Note that the graph at the top of the next page shows that 69% of synagogue member
households contain a member who visited Israel, compared to 41% of synagogue non-member
households.)
110
Israel–Visits
Households in Which a Member Visited Israel
Correlation of Jewish Behaviors with Trips to Israel
111
Emotional Attachment to Israel
ewish respondents in Middlesex were asked: “How emotionally attached are you to Israel?
Would you say extremely, very, somewhat, or not attached?” 27% of respondents are
extremely attached to Israel; 31%, very attached; 32%, somewhat attached; and 10%, not
attached. In total, 58% of respondents are extremely or very attached to Israel.
J
| The 58% who are extremely or very attached to Israel is the third highest of about 35
| 78% of respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 76% of
respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip are extremely or very
attached to Israel, compared to 37% of respondents in households in which no adult visited Israel.
Extremely or Very Attached to Israel (Jewish Respondents)
112
Anti-Semitism
verall, 8% (1,896 households) of Jewish respondents in Middlesex personally experienced
anti-Semitism in Middlesex in the past year. The respondent defined “anti-Semitism” for
himself/herself. The 8% is the second lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
O
| 13% of households with Jewish children age 6-17 contain a Jewish child age 6-17 who
experienced anti-Semitism in Middlesex in the past year, mainly at school. The 13% is about
10% in Monmouth.
| 5% of respondents perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in Middlesex; 26%, a moderate
amount; 48%, a little; and 21%, none at all. In total, 31% of respondents perceive a great deal or
moderate amount of anti-Semitism in Middlesex. The 31% is the fifth lowest of about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 41% in Monmouth and 37% in Bergen.
Personally Experienced Anti-Semitism in Middlesex in the Past Year (Jewish
Respondents) and Perceive a Great Deal or Moderate Amount of Anti-Semitism in
Middlesex (Respondents) by Age of Respondent
113
The Media
overall, 28% of Jewish respondents in Middlesex always read the New Jersey Jewish News;
9%, usually; 26%, sometimes; and 37%, never. In total, 37% (8,808 households) of
respondents always or usually read the New Jersey Jewish News and 63% (15,072 households)
always, usually, or sometimes do. The New Jersey Jewish News is privately owned, but is
distributed to about 9,900 households on the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County
mailing list.
O
| The 37% who always or usually read a local Jewish newspaper is about average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 38% in Bergen and 29% in
Monmouth.
| 23% of respondents who always, usually, or sometimes read the New Jersey Jewish News and
were able to provide a perception perceive it as excellent; 61%, good; 16%, fair; and 1%, poor.
| The 23% excellent perceptions of the local Jewish newspaper is about average among about
20 comparison Jewish newspapers.
Always or Usually Read the New Jersey Jewish News (Jewish Respondents)
114
Philanthropic Profile–Overall Donations
verall, 90% of Jewish households in Middlesex reported that they donated to Any Charity
(Jewish or non-Jewish) in the past year; 44%, to the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex
County (JFGMC); 15%, to other Jewish Federations (Jewish Federations other than JFGMC);
59%, to Other Jewish Charities (Jewish charities other than Jewish Federations); 73%, to Any
Jewish Charity (Jewish Federations or Other Jewish Charities); and 79%, to Non-Jewish Charities.
O
Donated to JFGMC in the Past Year
Donated to Other Jewish Federations
in the Past Year
Donated to Other Jewish Charities
in the Past Year
Donated to Non-Jewish Charities
in the Past Year
115
Philanthropic Profile–JFGMC Donations
A
ccording to the Telephone Survey, 44% (10,440 households) of Jewish households in
Middlesex reported that they donated to JFGMC in the past year.
| The 44% who donated to the local Jewish Federation in the past year according to the
Telephone Survey is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 46% in Bergen, 45% in Pittsburgh, 37% in Monmouth, and 28% in New York. The
44% compares to 25% nationally for any Jewish Federation.
| According to the Jewish Federation Survey, 16% (3,928 households) of households donated
to JFGMC in the past year. The Telephone Survey implies that the percentage of households who
donated to JFGMC in the past year is 27 percentage points higher than that suggested by the
Jewish Federation Survey. Such a disparity is common in Jewish community studies. See Chapter
14 in the Main Report for more information.
| The 47% who were not asked to donate to the local Jewish Federation in the past year is
about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 59% in
New York, 54% in Monmouth, and 40% in Bergen. The 47% compares to 64% nationally for any
Jewish Federation.
| The percentage of households who were not asked to donate to JFGMC in the past year
decreases from 69% of households under age 35 to 67% of households age 35-49, 52% of
households age 50-64, 42% of households age 65-74, and 34% of households age 75 and over.
| Of the households asked to donate to JFGMC in the past year, 17% did not donate. The 17%
of households asked who did not donate to the local Jewish Federation in the past year is
about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in
New York, 21% in Bergen, and 12% in Monmouth. The 17% compares to 24% nationally for any
Jewish Federation.
JFGMC Market Segments in the Past Year
116
| 2% of households who donated to JFGMC in the past year are under age 35; 10%, age 35-49;
22%, age 50-64; 21%, age 65-74; and 45%, age 75 and over. 38% of households who donated
are elderly couple households; 24%, elderly single households; 15%, households with children;
9%, non-elderly couple households; and 8%, households with only adult children. 30% of
households who donated earn an annual income under $50,000 and 12%, $200,000 and over.
10% of households who donated are Orthodox; 44%, Conservative; 27%, Reform; and 20%, Just
Jewish.
| 60% of households who donated $500 and over to JFGMC in the past year have lived in
Middlesex for 20 or more years. 50% of households who donated $500 and over are age 65 and
over. 38% of households who donated $500 and over are Conservative; 27%, Orthodox; 21%,
Reform; and 15%, Just Jewish. 88% of households who donated $500 and over are synagogue
members; 3%, JCC members; and 79%, Jewish organization members.
Donated to JFGMC in the Past Year by Age of Head of Household
117
Donated to JFGMC in the Past Year
118
JFGMC Annual Campaign
| According to the Jewish Federation Survey, the JFGMC Annual Campaign decreased by 24%
from $3,234,278 in 2000 (adjusted for inflation) to $2,545,640 in 2008.
| According to the Jewish Federation Survey, from 2000-2002 the number of Jewish donors to
the Annual Campaign increased from 6,050 donors to 6,322 donors. From 2002-2008, the
number of Jewish donors decreased from 6,322 donors to 4,716 donors.
| The average donation per Jewish household of $102 is the sixth lowest of about 50
comparison Jewish communities and compares to $594 in Pittsburgh, $235 in New York, and $90
in Monmouth.
| Adjusted for inflation, the average donation per Jewish household in Middlesex was $116 in
2000 and $102 in 2008, a decrease of $14 (12%) from 2000-2008.
JFGMC Annual Campaign (Adjusted for Inflation, in millions)
119
Table 15
Average Donation per Jewish Household
to the Local Jewish Federation
Community
Year
Amount
Community
Year
Amount
Minneapolis
2004
$1,114
S Palm Beach
2005
$277
Detroit
2005
$1,100
Seattle
2000
$276
Cleveland
1996
$936
Wilmington
1995
$239
Tidewater
2001
$890
New York
2002
$235
Baltimore
1999
$873
Washington
2003
$234
Charlotte
1997
$756
Philadelphia
1997
$233
Milwaukee
1996
$740
Orlando
1993
$224
Columbus
2001
$712
Buffalo
1995
$214
St. Paul
2004
$608
San Francisco
2004
$203
Pittsburgh
2002
$594
Los Angeles
1997
$187
Lehigh Valley
2007
$581
Denver
2007
$169
Chicago
2000
$581
San Diego
2003
$159
Richmond
1994
$553
Phoenix
2002
$137
Essex-Morris
2008
$537
Portland (ME)
2007
$123
Harrisburg
1994
$517
Westport
2000
$107
San Antonio
2007
$507
Cincinnati
2008
$483
St. Petersburg
Middlesex
1994
2008
$107
$102
Rochester
1999
$469
Las Vegas
2005
$96
St. Louis
1995
$449
Atlantic County
2004
$92
Miami
2004
$448
Monmouth
1997
$90
Hartford
2000
$422
Howard County
1999
$78
Rhode Island
2002
$420
Broward
1999
$47
Boston
2005
$398
Jacksonville
2002
$366
W Palm Beach
2005
$358
Palm Springs
1998
$358
Tucson
2002
$306
Atlanta
2006
$297
Sarasota
2001
$291
York
1999
$281
Note: The num ber of Jewish households in the year
of the study is used to calculate the average
donation per Jewish household, while the cam paign
inform ation is generally for 2007. To the extent that
the num ber of Jewish households in a com m unity
has changed since the year of the study, the
Amount colum n m ay underestim ate or overestim ate
the average donation per Jewish household in 2007.
Source: The 2007 Annual Cam paign inform ation
was provided by Lawrence Kotler-Berkowitz of the
R e s e a rch D e p a rtm e n t o f U n ite d J e w is h
Com m unities.
120
Philanthropic Profile–Other Donations
he 73% of Jewish households in Middlesex who donated to Any Jewish Charity in the past
year is the third highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 71%
in Bergen, 66% in Monmouth, 65% in Pittsburgh, and 58% in New York. The 73% compares to
49% nationally.
T
Households Who Donated to Other Jewish Charities
| The 59% who donated to Other Jewish Charities in the past year is the fifth highest of about
40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 60% in Bergen, 59% in Pittsburgh, 56% in
New York, and 55% in Monmouth. The 59% compares to 40% nationally.
Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Other Jewish Charities
and Jewish Federations
| The 21% who donated to Other Jewish Charities only in the past year is about average
among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 19% in Bergen and 18% in
Monmouth. The 21% compares to 22% nationally.
| The 38% who donated to both Any Jewish Federation and Other Jewish Charities in the
past year is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
42% in Bergen and 37% in Monmouth. The 38% compares to 20% nationally.
Households Who Donated to Non-Jewish Charities
| The 79% who donated to Non-Jewish Charities in the past year is about average among
about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 83% in Pittsburgh, 76% in Bergen,
73% in Monmouth, and 65% in New York. The 79% compares to 63% nationally.
Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Non-Jewish Charities
and Jewish Charities
| The 17% who donated to Non-Jewish Charities only in the past year is the eighth lowest of
about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 25% in Pittsburgh, 23% in New York,
20% in Monmouth, and 16% in Bergen. The 17% compares to 24% nationally.
| The 10% who donated to Jewish Charities only in the past year is about average among
about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 17% in New York, 12% in both
Monmouth and Bergen, and 7% in Pittsburgh. The 10% compares to 10% nationally.
| The 63% who donated to both Any Jewish Charity and Non-Jewish Charities in the past
year is the sixth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 60% in
Bergen, 59% in Pittsburgh, 54% in Monmouth, and 41% in New York. The 63% compares to 40%
nationally.
Households Who Donated to Any Charity
| The 90% who donated to Any Charity in the past year is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 89% in both Bergen and Pittsburgh, 86% in
Monmouth, and 90% in New York. The 90% compares to 73% nationally.
121
Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Other Jewish
Charities and Jewish Federations in the Past Year
Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Non-Jewish
Charities and Jewish Charities in the Past Year
122
Donated to Charities in the Past Year by Age of Head of Household
(Sample Size of Under 35 is 26)
123
he 15% of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in Middlesex to the local
Jewish Federation in the past year is the seventh lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 18% in Monmouth and 11% in Bergen. The 20% (15% plus 5%)
of charitable dollars donated to Any Jewish Federation in the past year compares to 19%
nationally.
T
| The 49% of all charitable dollars donated to Other Jewish Charities in the past year is the
second highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 56% in Bergen and
45% in Monmouth. The 49% compares to 43% nationally.
| The 31% of all charitable dollars donated to Non-Jewish Charities in the past year is the sixth
lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 32% in Monmouth and 30%
in Bergen. The 31% compares to 38% nationally.
| The 69% of all charitable dollars donated to Any Jewish Charity in the past year is the sixth
highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 70% in Bergen and 68%
in Monmouth. The 69% compares to 62% nationally.
| Of all charitable dollars donated to Any Jewish Charity in the past year, 22% were donated to
the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County; 7%, to Other Jewish Federations; and 71%,
to Other Jewish Charities. The 22% of Jewish charitable dollars donated to the local Jewish
Federation in the past year is the sixth lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
Distribution of Charitable Dollars in the Past Year
124
he 5% of respondents age 50 and over in Jewish households in Middlesex who have wills
that contain provisions for Jewish charities is the lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 13% in Pittsburgh, 8% in both New York and Bergen, and 6% in
Monmouth. The 5% compares to 11% nationally. (The 1% of respondents age 50 and over who
have wills that contain provisions for both Jewish and Non-Jewish Charities are reported as having
wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities.)
T
| 7% of respondents age 50 and over who are very familiar with the Jewish Federation have wills
that contain provisions for Jewish charities.
| 7% of respondents age 50 and over in households earning an annual income of $200,000 and
over have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities.
| Among respondents age 50 and over, 15% of Orthodox Jews, 7% of Conservative Jews, 4%
of Reform Jews, and 2% of the Just Jewish have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities.
| 8% of respondents age 50 and over in synagogue member households and 8% of respondents
age 50 and over in Jewish organization member households have wills that contain provisions for
Jewish charities.
| 2% of respondents age 50 and over in households who did not donate and 5% of respondents
in households who donated under $100 to the Jewish Federation in the past year have wills that
contain provisions for Jewish charities, compared to 13% of respondents in households who
donated $100-$500 and 10% of respondents in households who donated $500 and over.
Have Wills That Contain Provisions for Charities
(Respondents Age 50 and Over)
125
ewish respondents in Middlesex were asked whether they had done any “volunteer work for,
or sponsored by, a synagogue, Jewish Federation, or other Jewish organization” in the past
year and whether they had done any “volunteer work for, or sponsored by, any organization that
is not specifically Jewish” in the past year. In total, 44% of respondents volunteered for some
organization (either Jewish or non-Jewish) in the past year.
J
| The 26% who volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past year is about average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 31% in Bergen and 29% in New York.
| The 29% who volunteered for non-Jewish organizations in the past year is the third lowest
of about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 32% in Bergen and 31% in
New York. The 29% compares to 34% nationally.
| The 15% who volunteered for Jewish organizations but not for non-Jewish organizations
to 20% in Bergen and 12% in New York. The 15% compares to 8% nationally.
| The 17% who volunteered for non-Jewish organizations but not for Jewish organizations
in the past year is the fifth lowest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
21% in Bergen and 14% in New York. The 17% compares to 20% nationally.
Volunteered for Jewish and Non-Jewish Organizations
in the Past Year (Jewish Respondents)
126
Volunteered for Jewish and Non-Jewish Organizations in the Past Year
by Age of Respondent (Jewish Respondents)
127
espondents in Jewish households in Middlesex who donated $100 and over to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County (JFGMC), Other Jewish Federations, or Other
Jewish Charities (Jewish charities other than Jewish Federations) in the past year were asked
whether each of several motivations is very important, somewhat important, or not at all important
in their decisions to donate to a Jewish organization.
R
| All of the motivations are at least somewhat important to the vast majority of respondents.
| Compared to about 20 comparison Jewish communities, the percentages of respondents who
consider supporting the people of Israel and supporting educational trips to Israel to be very
important motivations are both the third highest. The percentage of respondents who consider
providing individual and family counseling for Jews to be a very important motivation is above
average. The percentages of respondents who consider the other five motivations to be very
important are all about average.
| In most Jewish communities, including Middlesex, providing social services for the Jewish
elderly, supporting the people of Israel, combating anti-Semitism, and providing Jewish education
for children, are considered to be very important motivations by a majority of respondents, while
helping Jews overseas who are in distress, providing individual and family counseling for Jews,
supporting educational trips to Israel, and providing social, recreational, and cultural activities for
Jews, are considered to be very important motivations by fewer respondents.
Percentage Who Reported That Each Motivation Is “Very
Important” (Respondents in Households Who Donated $100
and Over to JFGMC, Other Jewish Federations, or Other Jewish
Charities in the Past Year)
128
espondents in Jewish households in Middlesex who donated $100 and over to the Jewish
Federation of Greater Middlesex County (JFGMC) in the past year were asked whether each
of several motivations would cause them to donate more to JFGMC.
R
| 33% of respondents would donate more to JFGMC if more of the money went to local needs,
while 24% would donate more if more of the money went to needs in Israel and overseas.
.
| The 35% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if they were asked by a close
friend is the third highest of about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 37% in
Bergen.
| The 33% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if more of the money went
to local needs is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 36% in Bergen.
| The 27% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if they had more say over
how the money was spent is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 43% in Bergen.
| The 24% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if more of the money went
to needs in Israel and overseas is above average among about 20 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 27% in Bergen.
| The 22% who would donate more
to the local Jewish Federation if they
were asked in person is above
average among about ten
| The 1% who would donate more
to the local Jewish Federation if they
received more recognition for
their donation is about average
among about 20 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 5% in
Bergen.
Percentage Who Reported That Each Motivation
Would Cause Them to Donate More to JFGMC
(Respondents in Households W ho Donated $100 and Over
to JFGMC in the Past Year)
129
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Laura Safran, Planning and Allocations
Director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County. Laura worked extremely hard to
make the study go smoothly. Of particular note are the significant effort and interpersonal skills
she demonstrated in gathering data from more than 50 synagogues. She is truly dedicated to the
Middlesex Jewish community. Gerrie Bamira, Executive Director, and Susan Antman, Associate
Director, also contributed to the study.
The Demographic Advisory Committee and the Study Development Committee, chaired by Barry
Sherman, also contributed greatly to the quality of the project, making suggestions that resulted
in new questions and improvements to existing questions. The Committees also expended
significant effort to publicize the study so that the community would be ready to take part in the
study.
Lee Livingston, President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County, is commended
for having the foresight to recognize the importance of such a study for the Middlesex Jewish
community.
Thanks are due to my staff, including Roberta Pakowitz, Sarah Markowitz, and Karen Tina
Sheskin, for their assistance and dedication to the project, and especially to Joshua Sheskin who,
as Assistant Field Supervisor, worked 15 hour days helping to supervise the interviewing team
and successfully obtain surveys from reluctant respondents.
Special thanks go to the 1,076 respondents who donated their time to this effort and to our 43
interviewers, almost all of whom were members of the Middlesex Jewish community, who worked
with great dedication on this study.
This study is dedicated to the future of the Jewish community of Middlesex County.
L’dor V’dor
From Generation to Generation
Ira M. Sheskin, Ph.D.
January 2009
Tevet 5769
130

Summary Report - Berman Jewish DataBank

Transcription

Similar documents

November 22nd

S ANC TU AR Y - reformjudaismmag.net

THE SHOSHANA S. CARDIN JEWISH LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE

Zagreb celebrating Jewish culture Aus: Nachrichtenagentur Hina

`I`m not sorry for faith schools`

New Community Jewish High School

pg 2

Bravo`s Cupid - Patti Stanger

JSSA Donor News

Young Judaism Traveling with Jewish Taste©