Dallas TX 1988 - Demographic Profile Report

Transcription

''Let u s be like t h e l i n e s t h a t l e a d t o t h e c e n t e r of a c i r c l e
not l i k e p a r a l l e l l i n e s , which never join."
- uniting
t h e r e , and
Hasidic Saying
The Community Research and Development Committee of t h e J e w i s h F e d e r a t i o n of
G r e a t e r D a l l a s t a k e s p r i d e i n p r e s e n t i n g t o t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community t h e G r e a t e r
D a l l a s J e w i s h Community Study. The f o u r volumes of d a t a d e t a i l i n g demographic,
r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i t y and community involvement, human s e r v i c e s , and p h i l a n t h r o p y
b r i n g t o g e t h e r t h e imput of t h e e n t i r e community: agencies, synagogues, temples,
organizations.
We embarked on t h i s important e f f o r t some f i v e y e a r s ago a t t h e u r g i n g of t h e
S o c i a l Planning Committee under t h e l e a d e r s h i p of Sol Munves, Chairman, and Morris
S t e i n , Executive D i r e c t o r . We were at t h a t t i m e confronted w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
of confirming t h e n a t u r e of a r a p i d l y growing J e w i s h community i n o r d e r t o a s s u r e
meeting and understanding a m u l t i t u d e of needs, b o t h p r e s e n t and f u t u r e .
Two F e d e r a t i o n p r e s i d e n t s have l e n t t h e i r support and guidance, Harold
Kleinman and Howard Schultz. I n a d d i t i o n , a s F e d e r a t i o n Foundation Chairman, Howard
Schultz l e d t h e way f o r foundation funding of t h e study.
Sanford Fagadau, c u r r e n t
Federation p r e s i d e n t and a member of t h e s t u d y committee, w i l l have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
t o s e e d u r i n g h i s t e n u r e many a s p e c t s of t h e s t u d y f u l f i l l e d .
P u b l i c i t y , p u b l i c awareness of t h e proposed s t u d y and t h e hundreds of i n t e r views, and t h e f i n a l production of t h e r e p o r t s have been i n t h e c r e a t i v e hands of
Tanya Lefton, Communications D i r e c t o r , and h e r s t a f f .
The massive amount of r e s e a r c h and d e t a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e was done under t h e
a u s p i c e s of D r . Gary Tobin, D i r e c t o r of t h e Cohen Center f o r Modern J e w i s h S t u d i e s ,
Brandeis University.
We found i n D r . Tobin n o t o n l y an o u t s t a n d i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l ,
but a l s o , and perhaps more i m p o r t a n t l y , a p r o f e s s i o n a l who was w i l l i n g and i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e s t u d y committee look a t and s u b s t a n t i a t e every a s p e c t of o u r task. He
challenged us; he made u s think; he enabled u s t o g i v e t o t h i s community t h e b e s t .
P r o f e s s i o n a l s a r e t h e mainstay of any e f f o r t . They guide, d i r e c t , and a r e
c a t a l y s t s f o r t h e l a y persons; they have t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t r a n s l a t i n g a l l
thoughts i n t o a cohesive and understandable format; t h e y expend u n t o l d hours t o
a s s u r e e x c e l l e n c e . J o s i e Hertz, Budget and Planning D i r e c t o r , i s t h a t profess i o n a l . Our thanks and a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r making t h e s t u d y a r e a l i t y .
The Community Research and Development Committee h a s d e d i c a t e d i t s t i m e ,
e f f o r t , and energy t o a long and d i f f i c u l t process.
They have been d i l i g e n t , and
u n t i r i n g t h e s e many months. The s u c c e s s of any endeavor is i n t h e hands of t h o s e
who d e t e r m i n e concepts, d e a l w i t h f i n a l a n a l y s i s , and manage through a l l t o keep
t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of t h e t a s k a t hand.
T h i s s t u d y i s t h e i r s . The community's p r i d e
i n t h e completion of t h i s arduous t a s k i s a l s o t h e i r s , a s w e l l a s t h e community's
thanks. They have guaranteed t h a t t h e G r e a t e r D a l l a s J e w i s h community w i l l always
b e l i k e t h e l i n e s l e a d i n g t o t h e c e n t e r of a c i r c l e , f o r e v e r joined.
Andrea Weinstein,
Chairperson
e
It i s w i t h g r e a t p r i d e t h a t we s h a r e t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h Community Study w i t h
you.
This f i n a l r e p o r t i s t h e c u l m i n a t i o n of f o u r y e a r s of e f f o r t by t h e J e w i s h
F e d e r a t i o n of G r e a t e r D a l l a s and i t s Community Research and Development Committee.
The i d e a was p l a n t e d i n 1985, when t h e S o c i a l Planning Committee, i n a long-range
planning proposal, l i s t e d a s t h e f i r s t p r i o r i t y t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r an in-depth community study. The committee and t h e F e d e r a t i o n Board r e a l i z e d t h e D a l l a s Jewish
community had undergone s i g n i f i c a n t changes s i n c e t h e l a s t community s t u d y which
was conducted i n t h e 1970s. A s e r i e s of s p e c i a l committees i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of a s t u d y , and t h e experience of o t h e r communities i n conducting and
implementing f i n d i n g s of s t u d i e s . From t h e v e r y beginning, t h e r e was a commitment
t o a s t u d y which would be of u s e t o a l l t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t h e J e w i s h community.
I n 1986, t h e Community Research and Development Committee was e s t a b l i s h e d ,
under t h e l e a d e r s h i p of Andrea Weinstein. T h e i r f i r s t t a s k was t o s e a r c h f o r a
s t u d y c o n s u l t a n t . They had t h e good judgment t o s e l e c t D r . Gary Tobin, D i r e c t o r of
t h e Cohen Center f o r Modern Jewish S t u d i e s a t Brandeis U n i v e r s i t y , a s c h i e f researcher. The committee s p e n t c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e w i t h D r . Tobin i n t h e development
of t h e r e s e a r c h instrument. He worked c l o s e l y w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of a l l major
Jewish community o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n D a l l a s i n r e f i n i n g t h e f i n a l schedule and questionnaire.
-
Throughout t h e p r o c e s s , t h e Community Research and Development Committee
r e l i e d h e a v i l y on t h e guidance and p r o f e s s i o n a l support of F e d e r a t i o n Budget and
Planning D i r e c t o r Josephine Hertz.
Beginning i n 1988, D r . Tobin r e t u r n e d t o t h e community t o s h a r e p r e l i m i n a r y
r e s u l t s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of J e w i s h o r g a n i z a t i o n s , congregations, and educat i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . A number of them began t o u s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e development of programs and a c t i v i t i e s . I n 1988 and 1989, f o u r F e d e r a t i o n Board
i n s t i t u t e s were conducted, w i t h D r . Tobin a s l e a d e r , t o h e l p u s understand t h e
f i n d i n g s and i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e study.
We b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s s t u d y w i l l h e l p t h e F e d e r a t i o n i n i t s m i s s i o n of h e l p i n g
"to a s s u r e t h e c o n t i n u i t y of a s t r o n g and v i b r a n t Jewish community i n D a l l a s ,
I s r a e l , and throughout t h e world."
The F e d e r a t i o n i s proud t o s h a r e t h i s r e p o r t w i t h t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community.
I t i s f i l l e d w i t h e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n and recommendations. We urge you
t o u s e it.
Sanford P. Fagadau,
President
COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Andrea Weinstein. Chairperson
Lawrence Cohen
Howard S c h u l t z
D r . Sanford "Texn Fagadau
Ann S i k o r a
Gary Hoffman
Andrea Statman
Ynette Hogue
Darrel S t r e l i t z
Harold Kleinman
David Vogel
Martin Litwin
Harvey Weiner
D r . Lynda Newman
Carol Newberger Weinstein
Aaron Pearlman
Loren Weinstein
D r . Harlan Pollock
Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman
Josephine Hertz. Budget and Planning D i r e c t o r
Morris A, S t e i n , Executive D i r e c t o r
A
FOREWORD
Conducting t h e D a l l a s demographic s t u d y w a s a t r u l y e n j o y a b l e e x p e r i e n c e
f o r me. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from a l l s e g m e n t s of t h e community w e r e i n v o l v e d i n
p l a n n i n g and c o m p l e t i n g t h i s p r o j e c t . I have worked w i t h many p e o p l e
o v e r t h e p a s t few y e a r s , and I f e e l I have become p a r t of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h
community.
The Community R e s e a r c h and Development Committee w a s i n v o l v e d i n e v e r y
a s p e c t of t h e study. They h e l p e d d e v i s e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , f a c i l i t a t e d t h e
f i e l d work, reviewed t h e r e p o r t s , and c o m p l e t e d many o t h e r t a s k s . The
m e e t i n g s were a l w a y s l i v e l y . Good i d e a s f l o w e d back and f o r t h , and c r e a t i v e
d i s c u s s i o n s a l w a y s took p l a c e . But, most of a l l , t h e r e was a n a t m o s p h e r e of
c i v i l i t y , c o o p e r a t i o n , and warmth, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which t y p i f y t h e D a l l a s
J e w i s h community.
I w i s h t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o some s p e c i a l p e o p l e i n t h e communi t y . The i m m e d i a t e p a s t P r e s i d e n t of t h e F e d e r a t i o n , Howard S c h u l t z , was
s u p p o r t i v e of t h i s p r o j e c t . H i s l e a d e r s h i p was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n t h e s u c c e s s f u l
c o m p l e t i o n of t h e study. Tex Fagadau, t h e c u r r e n t P r e s i d e n t and member of t h e
s t u d y committee, h a s moved s w i f t l y t o s e e t h a t t h e s t u d y i s a l r e a d y b e i n g
u t i l i z e d . A s Tex knows, he h a s a l w a y s b e e n " f a m i l y " t o me.
A special
acknowledgement t o Ann S i k o r a , who a l s o made m e f e e l s o much a t home.
.
A
Many J e w i s h communal p r o f e s s i o n a l s were v e r y h e l p f u l , w i t h i n t h e Federat i o n and i n o t h e r a g e n c i e s as w e l l . A s p e c i a l nod t o A r n i e Marks, D i r e c t o r of
J e w i s h F a m i l y S e r v i c e . F e d e r a t i o n p r o f e s s i o n a l s were a l l a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d ,
i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l h e l p from t h e Campaign D i r e c t o r , Ziona Balaban.
O t h e r s o u t s i d e t h e community a l s o were i n t e g r a l members of t h e s t u d y
team. These i n c l u d e J a y Bycer, P r e s i d e n t of M a r k e t i n g S o l u t i o n s Group, who
d i d a n i c e job i n c o n d u c t i n g t h e f i e l d work, and J o c e l y n Goldberg, P r e s i d e n t
of R o c h e s t e r Research Group, who conducted t h e f o c u s groups. I g i v e many
t h a n k s t o b o t h of them.
S y l v i a Barack Fishman co-authored t h e r e p o r t s w i t h me. She i s a d e l i g h t
t o work w i t h , and i s a w o n d e r f u l c o l l e a g u e a t t h e Cohen C e n t e r f o r Modern
J e w i s h S t u d i e s . G a b r i e l Berger, a l s o a c o l l e a g u e a t t h e C e n t e r , completed a l l
of t h e programming and s t a t i s t i c a l work. H e i s t h e b e s t I have e v e r had t h e
p r i v i l e g e t o work w i t h on any p r o j e c t .
V i c k i I b e r a t y p e d t h e s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t , p r e p a r e d and e d i t e d t h e manus c r i p t s , and h e l p e d c o n s t r u c t t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t a b l e s . She h a s worked w i t h m e
on a l l of my p r o j e c t s f o r t h e p a s t s e v e n y e a r s . I c o u l d n o t i m a g i n e t r y i n g t o
conduct a s t u d y w i t h o u t her.
Once a g a i n , I e x p r e s s my t o t a l g r a t i t u d e .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1
Introduction
2
Methodology
3
How t o Read Report
4
Demographic Data Highlights
5
Geographic Distribution, Household Size, and Household
Composition of the Jevish Population
Geographic D i s t r i b u t i o n
Household S i z e
Average Household S i z e
Household Composition
6
Nativity, Residence, Mobility, and Housing Characteristics
P l a c e of B i r t h
Residence and Mobility
Length of Residence i n t h e D a l l a s Area
Length of Residence a t Current Address
Likelihood of Move Within Next Three Years
D e s t i n a t i o n of Respondents Who Are L i k e l y t o Move
Within Next Three Years
D e s t i n a t i o n Within D a l l a s Area of Respondents L i k e l y
t o Move Within Next Three Years
Home Ownership S t a t u s
7
Demographic and Social Characteristics
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Population by Sex
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Population by Age and Sex
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Population by Age and Geographic Area
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Population by Age. Sex. and
Geographic Area
Marital Status
Current M a r i t a l S t a t u s of A d u l t s 18 and Older by
Age and Sex
Current M a r i t a l S t a t u s of Adults 18 and Older by Area
Age at F i r s t Marriage by Age and Sex
Divorce and Remarriage
Fertility
A c t u a l Family S i z e i n D a l l a s Jewish Households
Adoption i n t h e D a l l a s Jewish Community
S e c u l a r Education
E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment of D a l l a s Jewish Adults
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
Zmployment S t a t u s
Occupational S t a t u s
Type of Employer
Unemployment i n P a s t Year
H e a l t h C o n d i t i o n s and D i s a b i l i t i e s
Kousehold Income
8
9
A Colaparison of the Jevish Comamnity of Dallas With Other
Metropolitan Areas
80
Major Demographic Trends
97
kpp e n d i x 1:
Survey I n s t r u m e n t
vii
LIST OF CHARTS
AM)
TABLES
Chart
Page
Methodology
-
G r e a t e r D a l l a s Demographic Study
Zip Code C l u s t e r s
P r o p o r t i o n of Jewish Households by Area
Household E s t i m a t e by Area
Haw To Read Report
Approximation t o Standard E r r o r of P r o j e c t e d Percentages
Approximation of Sampling E r r o r s of D i f f e r e n c e s Between
Percentages
Table
Geographic Distribution, Household Size, and Household
Composition of the Jewish Population
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Jewish P o p u l a t i o n and Households
by Geographic Area
Household S i z e
P r o p o r t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l s by Household S i z e
Household Composition by Geographic Area
Nativity, Residence, Mobility, and Housing Characteristics
P l a c e of B i r t h
P l a c e of B i r t h Within United S t a t e s
P r o p o r t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l s Born i n Texas, Who Were Born
i n Dallas
Length of Residence i n D a l l a s Area
Length o f Residence a t C u r r e n t Address
L i k e l i h o o d of Move Within Next Three Years
D e s t i n a t i o n of Respondents Who A r e L i k e l y t o Move Within
N e x t Three Years
D e s t i n a t i o n Within D a l l a s of Respondents L i k e l y t o Move
Within Next Three Years
Demographic and Social Characteristics
Sex D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e D a l l a s Jewish P o p u l a t i o n
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Jewish P o p u l a t i o n b y Age and Sex
D i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e Jewish P o p u l a t i o n by Age and Area
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Jewish P o p u l a t i o n by Age, Sex, and Area
Current M a r i t a l S t a t u s of A d u l t s 1 8 and Older
C u r r e n t M a r i t a l S t a t u s of A d u l t s 1 8 and Older by Age and Sex
Current M a r i t a l S t a t u s of Adults 1 8 and Older by Area
Age a t F i r s t Marriage by Age and Sex
Marriage Rate
Divorce Rate
6
8
9
17
18
LIST OF CHARTS AND TABLES
Table
Page
P l a n s f o r Bearing o r Adopting C h i l d r e n W i t h i n Next -;.,,a
Years Among Women Younger Than 45
L i f e t i m e C h i l d b e a r i n g P l a n s Among Women Younger Than 45
P r o p o r t i o n of Women Who Have Ever Given B i r t h o r Who
Have Adopted C h i l d r e n
C u r r e n t School Enrollment by Age
C u r r e n t School Enrollment b y Age and Sex
E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment o f A d u l t s 25 and O l d e r by Age and Sex
Employment S t a t u s by Age and Sex
O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s b y Age and Sex
Type of Employer by Age and Sex
Unemployment i n P a s t Year by Age and Sex
L i m i t i n g H e a l t h C o n d i t i o n s L a s t i n g S i x Months o r More
Median Household Income
Annual Household Income
A Comparison o f the Jewish Community of Greater D a l l a s
With Other Metropolitan Areas
Household S i z e
Length of Residence a t C u r r e n t Address
Moving P l a n s
Place of B i r t h
J e w i s h P o p u l a t i o n by Sex
J e w i s h P o p u l a t i o n by Age
The E l d e r l y
M a r i t a l S t a t u s of t h e J e w i s h P o p u l a t i o n
C u r r e n t l y Married by Age
S e c u l a r Education
Occupational S t a t u s
Annual Household Income
60
61
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
74
77
78
79
SECTION 1
Long-range p l a n n i n g h a s become e s s e n t i a l throughout t h e organized J e w i s h
community. Complex d e c i s i o n s must b e made i n many a r e a s : b u i l d i n g a s t r o n g e r
J e w i s h e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m , r e l o c a t i n g e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s and s t r a t e g i c a l l y
p l a c i n g new ones, implementing new programs and t r i m m i n g o t h e r s , i n s t i t u t i n g new
ways t o r a i s e funds, and b u i l d i n g J e w i s h i d e n t i t y and c o n t i n u i t y . Long-range
planning r e q u i r e s good i n f o r m a t i o n on which t o b a s e d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s .
The need f o r c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n provided t h e i m p e t u s t o conduct t h e s t u d y
of t h e D a l l a s p o p u l a t i o n . The s t u d y p r o v i d e s a demographic p r o f i l e , a r e l i g i o u s
p r o f i l e , a g u i d e t o key community r e l a t i o n s i s s u e s , and a needs assessment t o o l .
Most of a l l , i t p r o v i d e s a b a s i s f o r widespread community development e f f o r t s t o
i n c r e a s e community involvement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . It w i l l b e used i n a wide
v a r i e t y of community p l a n n i n g systems, b y t h e F e d e r a t i o n , synagogues and
temples, and many o t h e r J e w i s h o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
The d a t a p r e s e n t e d i n each r e p o r t a r e t h e r e s u l t of many y e a r s of planning,
promotion, f i e l d w o r k , and a n a l y s i s . Each r e p o r t r e p r e s e n t s t h e c o l l e c t i v e
e f f o r t s of l a y l e a d e r s h i p , J e w i s h communal p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and a r e s e a r c h team of
s c h o l a r s and market r e s e a r c h e x p e r t s .
.
T h i s r e p o r t i s one of f i v e i n i t i a l r e p o r t s t o b e completed f o r t h e J e w i s h
F e d e r a t i o n of G r e a t e r D a l l a s . The f i v e r e p o r t s a r e :
1) Demographic P r o f i l e
2) Community Development
3) Philanthropy
4 ) Human S e r v i c e Needs Assessment
5 ) Executive Summary ( h i g h l i g h t s of t h e above f o u r r e p o r t s )
Each r e p o r t h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d s e p a r a t e l y . Other s p e c i a l r e p o r t s may f o l l o w a s
t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n phases of t h e s t u d y p r o c e s s c o n t i n u e o v e r
t h e next few y e a r s .
T h i s r e p o r t , Demographic P r o f i l e , i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s :
1.
Introduction
2.
Methodology
3.
How t o Read Report
4.
Demographic Data H i g h l i g h t s
5.
Geographic D i s t r i b u t i o n , Household Size, and Household Composition of
t h e Jewish Population
6.
N a t i v i t y , Residence, Mobility, and Housing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
7.
Demographic and S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
8.
A Comparison of t h e J e w i s h Community of G r e a t e r D a l l a s w i t h Other
M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas
9.
Major Demographic Trends
Appendix 1:
Survey Instrument
-
SECTION 2
ABOUT THE STUDY
T h i s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s t h e most i m p o r t a n t f i n d i n g s from a s u r v e y of J e w i s h
households l i v i n g i n t h e D a l l a s a r e a , which i s served by t h e J e w i s h F e d e r a t i o n
of G r e a t e r Dallas. The f i n d i n g s a r e based upon almost 1,000 telephone
i n t e r v i e w s conducted during t h e Spring and Summer of 1988.*
The s t u d y a r e a encompasses a geographic a r e a which r u n s from Cedar H i l l ,
Duncanville, and Desoto t o t h e south; C a r r o l l t o n , L e w i s v i l l e , Plano, and
Richardson t o t h e north; a s f a r west a s I r v i n g and Grand P r a i r i e ; and Garland
and Mesquite t o t h e e a s t .
GOALS OF TFiE RESEARCB
.
-
E f f e c t i v e planning r e q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e make-up, behavior, and
a t t i t u d e s of t h e Jewish community. The o v e r a l l g o a l of t h e r e s e a r c h was t o
p r o v i d e t h e necessary d a t a f o r e f f e c t i v e planning f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , agencies,
and i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t h e D a l l a s Jewish community.
Four major c a t e g o r i e s of d a t a were c o l l e c t e d , w i t h major g o a l s f o r use of
t h e d a t a i n mind.
The f i r s t g o a l was t o i n c r e a s e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e demographic and
r e l i g i o u s make-up of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community. A b a s i c p r o f i l e of t h e J e w i s h
p o p u l a t i o n was necessary:
s i z e , age d i s t r i b u t i o n , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , e d u c a t i o n a l
l e v e l s , and s i m i l a r d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s . Another major a s p e c t of t h e d a t a
c o l l e c t i o n was t o d e t e r m i n e l e v e l s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s e v e r a l a s p e c t s of J e w i s h
l i f e : r e l i g i o u s observance, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n J e w i s h v o l u n t a r y and s e r v i c e
o r g a n i z a t i o n s , communications s o u r c e s w i t h i n t h e community, J e w i s h s o c i a l l i f e ,
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n J e w i s h education, and o t h e r a s p e c t s of J e w i s h i d e n t i t y .
The second g o a l was t o provide d a t a f o r planning of a wide range of human
s e r v i c e s . Data c o l l e c t i o n i n t h i s a r e a developed i n f o r m a t i o n about s e r v i c e
needs of t h e J e w i s h community, u s e of a g e n c i e s and s e r v i c e s , and t h e p o t e n t i a l
need f o r f u t u r e s e r v i c e s and community programs.
A t h i r d g o a l was t o develop t h e d a t a needed f o r long-range fund r a i s i n g
planning t o expand t h e b a s e of c o n t r i b u t i o n s . A t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r s i n
p h i l a n t h r o p y , b o t h t o F e d e r a t i o n and t o o t h e r J e w i s h o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a s w e l l a s
t o non-Jewish p h i l a n t h r o p i e s , were explored.
*Authorization i s r e q u i r e d f o r any p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s .
A f o u r t h g o a l was t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n about community involvement and
p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Volunteerism and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l membership were s t u d i e d .
S U R V ' INSTRUMKNl' DESIGN
The survey i n s t r u m e n t was designed i n a c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t by t h e Jewish
F e d e r a t i o n of G r e a t e r D a l l a s g Community Research and Development Committee and
Gary Tobin, D i r e c t o r of t h e Cohen Center f o r Modern Jewish S t u d i e s a t Brandeis
University. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e l e a d e r s of many synagogues, o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and
a g e n c i e s w i l l i n g l y provided i n p u t s o t h a t t h e survey would provide t h e most
u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n p o s s i b l e . A copy of t h e survey i n s t r u m e n t i s included i n
Appendix 1.
Each community p u t s t h e i r own mark on t h e demographic s t u d y process. St.
Louis was i n n o v a t i v e i n developing t h e community process. Kansas C i t y p a i d
special attention t o issues relating t o intermarriage, Atlantic City t o the
e f f e c t s of a changing economic b a s e on t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e Jewish community,
and Chicago t o i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e J e w i s h poor. MetroWest was i n n o v a t i v e i n
t h e e x p l o r a t i o n of fund r a i s i n g i s s u e s .
The San Francisco Bay Area s t u d y
pioneered new q u e s t i o n s i n t h e a r e a s of fund r a i s i n g and J e w i s h i d e n t i t y . The
D a l l a s survey was i n n o v a t i v e i n i t s q u e s t i o n s on Jewish education, and "marketg'
behaviors, a s t h e y a f f e c t s e r v i c e usage and g i v i n g p a t t e r n s .
SAMPLE DESIGN
F i v e geographic sub-areas were d e f i n e d w i t h i n t h e t o t a l D a l l a s coverage
area. The d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s e sub-areas was developed i n a s e r i e s of meetings
i n v o l v i n g t h e Community Research and Development Committee. The f i v e geographic
sub-areas a r e a s f o l l o w s :
Near North D a l l a s
F a r North Dallas/Richardson
East and Northeast Dallas/West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs
BASIC RANDOM DIGIT DIALING
The b a s i c sampling s t r u c t u r e was a s t r a t i f i e d random sample of t h e e n t i r e
coverage area. The purpose of t h e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n was t o e n a b l e u s t o o b t a i n
quotas of i n t e r v i e w s w i t h Jews i n f i v e sub-areas of t h e g r e a t e r D a l l a s area.
D i f f e r e n t i a l sampling f r a c t i o n s were used i n each area. I n t h i s way, t h e
sampling v a r i a b i l i t y f o r each sub-population i s h e l d roughly constant. We
emphasize t h a t w h i l e t h i s s t r a t i f i c a t i o n does r e s u l t i n s l i g h t l y h i g h e r
sampling e r r o r s f o r t h e p o p u l a t i o n a s a whole, i t more than compensates f o r t h i s
by s u b s t a n t i a l l y reducing t h e sampling e r r o r s i n a r e a s of low d e n s i t y J e w i s h
population, t h u s e n a b l i n g u s t o make more s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e s t a t e m e n t s
about t h e p o p u l a t i o n of t h e s e lower d e n s i t y a r e a s .
A
a
W I C LIST SAMPLE
A second sample was drawn from t h e F e d e r a t i o n ' s list. Telephone numbers
were g e n e r a t e d from t h e l i s t a t random and v e r i f i e d as J e w i s h households.
In
t o t a l . 495 i n t e r v i e w s were developed through t h e l i s t sample, and 430 through
t h e RDD sample.
I n s e v e r a l a r e a s , d e s p i t e many screens. because of a v e r y low i n c i d e n c e of
Jews, o n l y a v e r y s m a l l number of J e w i s h households were c o n t a c t e d . I n t h e s e
a r e a s , supplementary i n t e r v i e w s were conducted w i t h i n s o - c a l l e d D i s t i n c t J e w i s h
Name (Dm) households.
The procedure involved u s i n g a s t a n d a r d l i s t of D J N s as
a b a s i s f o r drawing names and phone numbers from t h e d e s i r e d a r e a s . E i g h t
p e r c e n t (8%) of t h e sample was i d e n t i f i e d through t h e use of D J N s .
The p r i m a r y sampling u n i t s used were z i p codes. The sample frame was
c o n s t r u c t e d u s i n g z i p code c l u s t e r s , and random t e l e p h o n e numbers were g e n e r a t e d
w i t h i n t h e s e z i p code c l u s t e r s . The f o l l o w i n g c h a r t shows a breakdown of z i p
code c l u s t e r s .
CHART 1
GREATER DALLAS DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY
ZIP CODE CLUSTERS
Near North Dallas
75205
75220 75230
75240 75252 75080
East and Northeast Dallas/West Garland
75204 75228 75243
75002
75008
75010
75019
75028
75038
75039
75040
75041
75043
75050
75051
75052
75056
75057
75060
75061
75062
75063
75067
75069
75087
75088
75104
75115
75116
75137
75149
75150
75180
75181
75182
75201
75202
75203
75207
75208
75210
75211
75212
75215
75216
75217
75223
75224
75226
75227
75232
75233
75235
75236
75237
75239
75241
75246
75247
75249
75253
GEOGRAPHIC SUB-AREAS
1 Near North Dallas
Dallas
University Park
Highland Park
Addison
2 Far North Dallas/
Richardson
Dallas
Richardson
3 East & Northeast Dallas/
West Garland
Dallas
Garland
4 Plano/Carrollton
Plano
Carrollton
Farmers Branch
5 Other Dallas/Other Suburbs
Lewisville
The Colony
Carrollton
Flower Mound
Coppell
Irving
Grand Prairie
Duncanville
DeSoto
Cedar Hill
Mesquite
Balch Springs
Sunnyvale
Garland
Rowlett/Rockwall
McKinney
Plano
Allen
DEFINING AN ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD
For t h e purposes of t h i s study, an e l i g i b l e household was one t h a t met t h e
following c r i t e r i a :
1) I t was a s i n g l e - f a m i l y household, o r an apartment w i t h a t l e a s t one
person l i v i n g t h e r e who was e i t h e r c u r r e n t l y Jewish o r had bee:
r a i s e d Jewish. No i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d persons were interviewed.
born o r
2) A J e w i s h person was d e f i n e d a s a person who was born o r r a i s e d Jewish,
whether t h e y now thought of themselves a s Jewish o r not, A person who
had converted t o Judaism was i n c l u d e d a s a Jew.
The t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e f o r t h e D a l l a s Jewish community i s 36,883.
The c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r t h i s e s t i m a t e a r e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e sub-section t i t l e d
P o p u l a t i o n P r o j e c t i o n , I t excludes a l l non-Jews who l i v e i n J e w i s h households
and a r e u n r e l a t e d t o anyone i n t h e household, i.e., boarders, roommates,
f r i e n d s , e t c . No persons w i t h o u t t e l e p h o n e s were included i n t h e study. It
does i n c l u d e t h e non-Jewish spouses, c h i l d r e n , and o t h e r r e l a t i v e s of Jews i n
t h e household. About 3,700 i n d i v i d u a l s r e l a t e d t o someone J e w i s h do n o t
i d e n t i f y themselves as Jewish,
The a n a l y s i s i n t h i s r e p o r t i s based on t h e 36,883 Jews and r e l a t e d nonJews l i v i n g i n 15,260 households.
It does n o t i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l s who c u r r e n t l y
r e s i d e i n some form of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d housing, such a s n u r s i n g homes. A l l
p e r c e n t a g e s and p r o j e c t e d t o t a l s a r e made on t h e b a s i s of 36,883 persons and
15,260 households. Given t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d persons, t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n
p r o j e c t i o n i s 38,000.
DEFINING AN KLIGIBLE RESPONDENT
Within a J e w i s h household, any respondent age 1 8 o r o l d e r was e l i g i b l e t o
b e interviewed. To o b t a i n an e l i g i b l e respondent, a s c r e e n i n g procedure, a s
d e s c r i b e d above, was used. A J e w i s h member of t h e household was i n t e r v i e w e d i n
almost a l l c a s e s , u n l e s s he/she r e f u s e d .
INTKRVIEuIr?G PROCEDURES
A l l 977 i n t e r v i e w s were done from a c e n t r a l i n t e r v i e w i n g f a c i l i t y i n
Phoenix, Arizona. Approximately t e n i n t e r v i e w e r s worked out of t h i s f a c i l i t y
f o r t h e e n t i r e d u r a t i o n of t h e study. A l l i n t e r v i e w s conducted were p e r s o n a l l y
s u p e r v i s e d by p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f of Market S o l u t i o n s Group.
I n t e r v i e w i n g was conducted d u r i n g t h e hours of 9:00 a.m. t o 9:00 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m, t o 4:00 p.m. on Friday. No i n t e r v i e w i n g
was done on F r i d a y evening, Saturday, o r any J e w i s h holidays.
HOUSEHOLD PROJECTION
The e s t i m a t e of t h e Jewish p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e D a l l a s a r e a was computed u s i n g
t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s c r e e n i n g from t h e RDD sample. The i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g was
performed through s t r a t i f i e d random sampling of t h e e n t i r e c p w r a g e area.
S t r a t i f y i n g i n advance ensures t h a t t h e sample w i l l have e x a c t l y t h e same prop o r t i o n s i n each subgroup a s t h e whole population. Moreover, t h e u s e of approp r i a t e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e s sample e f f i c i e n c y . Therefore, t h e
i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g of 10,018 r e s i d e n t i a l households p r o v i d e s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
sample of t h e D a l l a s population. I n t h e RDD sample, 179 households were i d e n t i f i e d a s i n c l u d i n g a t l e a s t one person born, r a i s e d , o r who c u r r e n t l y c o n s i d e r s
h i m / h e r s e l f Jewish.
The screened households were combined i n f i v e geographic a r e a s u s i n g z i p
codes t o e s t a b l i s h t h e p r o p o r t i o n of J e w i s h households of t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n
i n each of t h e geographic areas. By applying t h e p r o p o r t i o n of J e w i s h househ o l d s o b t a i n e d through t h e s c r e e n i n g of t h e p r o j e c t e d number of households ( f o r
t h e t o t a l population) i n each of t h e a r e a s , t h e number of J e w i s h households i n
D a l l a s was e s t i m a t e d . The population e s t i m a t e f o r t h e s t u d y a r e a was provided
by t h e N a t i o n a l Planning Data Corporation of I t h a c a , New York.
The r e s u l t s of t h e f i e l d w o r k from t h e sample drawn from t h e l i s t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t 7% of households w i t h a t l e a s t one J e w i s h person i n t h e household
deny t h e J e w i s h i d e n t i t y of t h e member. Therefore, t h e i n i t i a l e s t i m a t e of
J e w i s h households was c o r r e c t e d t o account f o r t h i s f a c t o r . The t o t a l number of
J e w i s h households i n t h e D a l l a s a r e a , a f t e r t h i s c o r r e c t i o n , i s e s t i m a t e d t o be
15,260.
CHART 2
PROPORTION OF JEWISH HOUSEHOLDS BY AREA
Geographic Area
East and Northeast D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other Dallas/Other Suburbs
Total
T o t a l Sample i n
I n i t i a l Screening
P r o p o r t i o n of
Households With
a Jewish Member
Total
Households
i n Study Area
-
CHART 3
HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE BY AREA
Geographic Area
Estimated Number
of I d e n t i f i e d
Jewish Households
7% C o r r e c t i o n f o r
Self-Denying Jews
Distribution
of Jewish
Households
East and Northeast D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other Dallas/Other Suburbs
Tot a 1
WEI(1IITING OF THE SAMPLE
Since t h r e e sample f r a m e s were u t i l i z e d i n d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s - F e d e r a t i o n
l i s t , RDD, and DJN - J e w i s h households had d i f f e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s of s e l e c t i o n .
For example, e a c h J e w i s h household had a chance of b e i n g s e l e c t e d through random
d i g i t d i a l i n g . I f a household was i n c l u d e d i n t h e F e d e r a t i o n l i s t , it a l s o had
an a d d i t i o n a l chance of s e l e c t i o n . Therefore, i t was n e c e s s a r y t o i n c l u d e
weights i n o r d e r t o a d j u s t f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s of s e l e c t i o n and
produce unbiased e s t i m a t e s of t h e J e w i s h population. Moreover, geographic a r e a s
were sampled a t d i f f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s t h a n t h e i r a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , which gave
households l o c a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t a r e a s a d i f f e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t y of s e l e c t i o n .
Therefore, s t r a t i f i c a t i o n w e i g h t s t o geographic a r e a s were d e f i n e d on a p o s t hoc
b a s i s (using t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n gained through screening)
.
The RDD sub-sample was compared t o t h e DJN sub-sample on a number of key
socio-demographic v a r i a b l e s ( r e s i d e n c e ownership, income, e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n ment); J e w i s h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v a r i a b l e s (synagogue membership, frequency of synagogue a t t e n d a n c e , r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e s , and number of J e w i s h f r i e n d s ) ; and
communal p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e s ( o r g a n i z a t i o n a l membership, c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o
Jewish c a u s e s and t o t h e F e d e r a t i o n ) . It was found t h a t t h e s e two sub-samples
d i d n o t p r e s e n t any s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s along t h e s e v a r i a b l e s ,
p e r m i t t i n g t h e t r e a t m e n t of b o t h sub-samples a s one ( i n t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n , i t w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e RDD sub-sample).
-
The households i n t h e RDD sub-sample were compared t o t h o s e i n c l u d e d i n t h e
e n t i r e F e d e r a t i o n l i s t t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e households i n c l u d e d i n t h e RDD subsample t h a t were on t h e l i s t a s w e l l . I n t h i s way, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a J e w i s h
household b e i n g i n c l u d e d i n t h e F e d e r a t i o n l i s t was e s t a b l i s h e d . A f i r s t
component of t h e w e i g h t s compensates f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y of
households i n c l u d e d i n t h e F e d e r a t i o n l i s t of b e i n g i n t h e f i n a l sample.
A second s t e p i n developing w e i g h t s was t h e t e s t i n g of whether o r n o t t h e
RDD and t h e l i s t sub-samples p r e s e n t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n any key v a r i a b l e , which
might have l e d t o t h e assumption t h a t t h e l i s t sub-sample under-represented l e s s
a f f i l i a t e d Jews. No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n number
of Zewish f r i e n d s , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a P a s s o v e r S e d e r d u r i n g t h e l a s t y e a r ,
synagogue a f f i l i a t i o n , membership i n a J e w i s h o r g a n i z a t i o n , c o n t r i b u t i o n t o
J e w i s h c a u s e s and t o t h e F e d e r a t i o n .
The s e x o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t was a l s o C C - = ~ > - ' :r +El? 7~e:nhting. A c a r e f u l
r e v i e w o f t h e q u e s t i o n s i n v o l v e d r e v e a l s t h a t most of them r e f e r t o i n f o r m a t i o n
p r o v i d e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t on household b e h a v i o r s , and as such, t h e y are n o t
i n f l u e n c e d by t h e s e x o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r respondent. C o n t r a r y t o what i s o f t e n
done i n d e v e l o p i n g w e i g h t s f o r community s t u d i e s , i t w a s d e c i d e d n o t t o w e i g h t
t h e r e s p o n d e n t d a t a b y sex t o compensate f o r t h e o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of women
among r e s p o n d e n t s , s i n c e m a j o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n males and f e m a l e s
were n o t found a l o n g t h e v a r i a b l e s examined. F u r t h e r m o r e , t o w e i g h t t h e respond e n t d a t a by s e x would l e a d t o t h e c r e a t i o n of s e p a r a t e w e i g h t s f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l b a s e d d a t a (which i n c l u d e a l l household members), c r e a t i n g a n u n n e c e s s a r y
c o m p l i c a t i o n i n t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s . F i n a l l y , i n t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f most import a n t v a r i a b l e s , s e p a r a t e a n a l y s e s are conducted f o r e a c h sex, c o n t r o l l i n g f o r
t h e h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of women among r e s p o n d e n t s , t h u s l e a v i n g no r e a s o n t o u s e
sex t o weight t h e d a t a .
The e s t i m a t e d g e o g r a p h i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n w a s a l s o
c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e w e i g h t i n g . F i n a l l y , t h e w e i g h t s were s t a n d a r d i z e d . T h i s w a s
done s i m p l y b y d i v i d i n g e a c h i n d i v i d u a l w e i g h t by t h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t , p r o d u c i n g
a n a v e r a g e w e i g h t o f 1.00 f o r t h e whole sample, which m a i n t a i n s t h e o r i g i n a l
number of c a s e s i n t h e s u r v e y , t h u s f a c i l i t a t i n g m a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h e d a t a .
I n sum, t h e f i r s t w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r c r e a t e d b y combining t h e two components
described ensures equal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a l l Jewish households, b o t h t o those
i n c l u d e d and t o t h o s e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e F e d e r a t i o n l i s t , and a t t h e same t i m e
p r o d u c e s a w e i g h t e d s a m p l e t h a t r e f l e c t s t h e e s t i m a t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of J e w i s h
households i n t h e Dallas a r e a .
A second w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r w a s c r e a t e d w i t h t h e p u r p o s e of p e r m i t t i n g t h e
p r o j e c t i o n o f r e s u l t s t o t h e e s t i m a t e d number of J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s and
i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e s t u d y area when d e s i r e d . T h i s second w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r m e r e l y
a d d s a n a d d i t i o n a l component t o t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d w e i g h t s d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y by
a s s i g n i n g a w e i g h t t o e a c h household such t h a t t h e w e i g h t e d t o t a l of h o u s e h o l d s
i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u r v e y i n e a c h a r e a e q u a l s t h e e s t i m a t e d number o f J e w i s h
h o u s e h o l d s f o r t h a t area. I n t h e same way, i n p r o j e c t i n g t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n
o f e a c h g e o g r a p h i c a r e a , t h e weighted v a l u e f o r e a c h household sampled i s
m u l t i p l i e d b y t h e number o f J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h a t household.
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL JEWISH POPULATION
A f t e r w e i g h t i n g t h e household d a t a , i t w a s p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e t h e t o t a l
p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n J e w i s h households w i t h a t least one J e w i s h p e r s o n , by
a p p l y i n g t h e w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r t o e a c h member o f t h e household. The t o t a l number
of i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g i n J e w i s h households w a s e s t i m a t e d t o b e 37,450; however
t h i s number i n c l u d e s an e s t i m a t e d 550 u n r e l a t e d non-Jewish p e r s o n s , s u c h as
roommates, b o a r d e r s , and employees. T h e r e f o r e t h e t o t a l J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n of
Dallas i s e s t i m a t e d t o b e 36,900 persons. I n c l u d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p e r s o n s ,
w e have rounded t h e estimate t o 38,000.
FIELDWORK RESULTS
RDD SAMPLE YIELD SUHHARP
A random d i g i t d i a l i n g s c r e e n i n g process was used f o r t h e purpose of
i d e n t i f y i n g and r e c r u i t i n g Jewish households f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e survey.
t o t a l of 10.000 i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g c a l l s were completed t o d e t e r m i n e J e w i s h
household c o n c e n t r a t i o n s by z i p code.
A
The digit-plus-one method was used t o complete t h e s c r e e n i n g process. An
average of t h r e e a t t e m p t s p e r telephone number were made, r e s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l
of 30,000 a d d i t i o n a l s c r e e n i n g a t t e m p t s , of which a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10.000 more were
consummated c a l l s .
A t o t a l of 450 q u a l i f i e d Jewish households were i d e n t i f i e d v i a t h e consummated c a l l s . R e f u s a l s among i d e n t i f i e d / q u a l i f i e d households were pursued
a c t i v e l y and r e p e a t e d l y .
LISTED AND RDD SAMF'LE YIELD SUMMARY
Males
Females
Completed i n t e r v i e w s
I n i t i a l r e f u s a l s ; converted
t o completed i n t e r v i e w s
901
No c o n t a c t
Unusable numbers
Ill/deceased
No one i n household Jewish
Refusals
377
25 6
131
135
335
Percent completion r a t e of
c o n t a c t a b l e Jewish households:
75%
76
Market S o l u t i o n s Group made an e f f o r t throughout t h e f i e l d p e r i o d t o
convert r e f u s a l s t o completed i n t e r v i e w s . Telephone numbers of r e f u s a l s were
i d e n t i f i e d and r e a s s i g n e d t o s p e c i f i c i n t e r v i e w e r s f o r conversion e f f o r t s .
QUALITY C o r n O L
Validat ions:
A 5% v a l i d a t i o n was performed of each interviewer's work. The v a l i d a t i o n s
were completed by t h e s u p e r v i s o r and t h e a s s i s t a n t supervisor. The v a l i d a t i o n
process r e q u i r e d t h a t 5% of t h e respondents be calleG and s e v e r a l of t h e
i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s be re-asked.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e s u p e r v i s o r asked i f t h e
i n t e r v i e w e r had been p l e a s a n t , and i f t h e respondent had any comments about t h e
interview.
Confidentiality:
A s r e q u i r e d by t h e Code of E t h i c s of t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r P u b l i c
Opinion Research, we w i l l m a i n t a i n t h e anonymity of t h e respondents. No
i n f o r m a t i o n can b e r e l e a s e d which w i l l i n any way r e v e a l t h e i d e n t i t y of a
respondent.
FOCUS GROUP RESEARCE
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e telephone survey t h a t was conducted, a s e r i e s of focus
groups were a l s o completed a s p a r t of t h e o v e r a l l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . These focus
groups provided more indepth, q u a l i t a t i v e examination of c e r t a i n i s s u e s r e l a t i n g
t o s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y , community development, and philanthropy. The i n f o r m a t i o n
from t h e focus groups was analyzed i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a
c o l l e c t e d i n t h e t e l e p h o n e survey. Throughout t h e r e p o r t s , i n s i g h t s from t h e
focus groups a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of t h e
t e l e p h o n e survey r e s u l t s . The f i n d i n g s from t h e focus groups a r e not
s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r e n c e d i n t h i s r e p o r t , b u t r a t h e r s e r v e a s background f o r
i n t e r p r e t i n g some of t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e data. An a n a l y s i s of t h e focus groups has
been completed i n a s e p a r a t e s p e c i a l r e p o r t .
SECTION 3
HOW TO READ REPOR!l'
T a b l e s a r e i n t e r s p e r s e d throughout t h e t a t . Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r
each q u e s t i o n a r e p r i n t e d on each t a b l e i n t h e r e p o r t , a l o n g w i t h s e l e c t e d
c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s by age, geography, r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and o t h e r
variables.
I n some t a b l e s , "donlt knows" and m i s s i n g v a l u e s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e
computations, and i n some c a s e s t h e y a r e n o t included. T h i s depends on whether
o r n o t t h e "don't know" i s a s t a t e m e n t of v a l u e o r merely an i n a b i l i t y t o
remember. A t t i t u d i n a l d a t a u s u a l l y i n c l u d e t h e "don't knowsI1 a s a value.
Furthermore, t h e numbers i n t h e t e x t sometimes d i f f e r from t h e numbers i n t h e
t a b l e s , depending on t h e b a s e upon which t h e y w e r e c a l c u l a t e d . T h i s i s noted
where t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s .
PERCENTAGE BASES
Throughout t h i s r e p o r t , two b a s e s have been used: t h e p r o j e c t e d number of
J e w i s h households and t h e a c t u a l number of i n t e r v i e w s o b t a i n e d i n t h a t c e l l . I t
should b e noted t h a t t h e t o t a l s v a r y , based on t h e number of r e s p o n s e s t o t h e
q u e s t i o n s . Some p e o p l e may have chosen n o t t o answer a q u e s t i o n , s o t h a t t o t a l s
a r e n o t always t h e same.
TABLES INCLUDED IN RXPOR!L'
Throughout t h i s r e p o r t , summary t a b l e s of t h e most i m p o r t a n t f i n d i n g s a r e
presented.
Obviously, i n a s t u d y of t h i s s i z e , a l l d a t a cannot b e included.
Copies of t h e d e t a i l e d t a b u l a t i o n s have been provided t o t h e F e d e r a t i o n , and a r e
a v a i l a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s a t g r e a t e r depth.
SHALL SAMPLE SIZES
Because of l i m i t e d sample s i z e , i t i s n o t always p o s s i b l e t o have d e t a i l e d
a n a l y s e s f o r e v e r y combination of v a r i a b l e s t h a t one might d e s i r e . Furthermore,
t h e i n c i d e n c e o f c e r t a i n sub-populations, e.g.,
the disabled o r particular
s e r v i c e u s e r s , i n t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n i s s o s m a l l t h a t t h e t o t a l number of
c a s e s i n a s u r v e y such a s t h i s i s n o t l a r g e enough t o do d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s .
While s t a n d a r d tests o f s i g n i f i c a n c e have been used t o e v a l u a t e t h e e n t i r e
d a t a set, a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s e tests i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h e a c h t a b l e o r
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e p o r t . While of u s e t o s o c i a l
s c i e n t i s t s i n d e t e r m i n i n g c a u s a l i t y , i n c l u s i o n of t h e s e s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s i n
t h e r e p o r t i s not v e r y i n f o r m a t i v e f o r most r e a d e r s .
.
The f o l l o w i n g r u l e s w e r e g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w e d i n d e c i d i n g when t o r e p o r t on
p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e s , and when i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i n s u f f i c i e n t c a s e s were
p r e s e n t f o r a n a l y s i s . A minimum c e l l s i z e of 10 w i t h i n a c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n was
n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e any i n f e r e n c e s would b e drawn. T h i s i s a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l
number of c a s e s compared t o many o t h e r k i n d s of s c i e n t i f i c o r s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c
s t u d i e s . However, i t should b e c l e a r l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e sampling e r r o r on such
s m a l l numbers i s q u i t e l a r g e . The d a t a a r e used i n a n i n t e r p r e t i v e way t o draw
g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n s and i n f e r e n c e s , and should not b e used a s l i t e r a l
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of t h e population. Therefore, w i t h v e r y s m a l l c e l l s i z e s of 10
t o 25, broad s t r o k e s and o u t l i n e s , which p o i n t t o t r e n d s , a r e b e i n g provided.
D i f f e r e n c e s of 5% t o 10% o r even more between two v a r i a b l e s when t h e c e l l s i z e
i s s o s m a l l should not b e t a k e n a s e x a c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . It should merely
point t o directional differences.
When t h e c e l l s i z e i s l e s s t h a n 10, t h e d a t a a r e even more i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c .
C e l l s i z e may b e c a l c u l a t e d by adding t h e p r o j e c t i o n s i n each c e l l , c a l c u l a t i n g
t h e percentages, and t a k i n g t h e p e r c e n t a g e of t h e t o t a l . The percentages
themselves a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y meaningless; t h e y merely p o i n t t o g e n e r a l trends.
Given sampling e r r o r , t h e y may b e i n c o r r e c t , b u t t h e y must b e examined i n t h e
c o n t e x t of o t h e r knowledge and d a t a s e t s . T h e r e f o r e , we have taken t h e
i n t e r p r e t i v e l i b e r t y of u s i n g even v e r y s m a l l c e l l s i z e s t o make some g e n e r a l
comments.
PERCENTAGES ADDING TO LESS OR MORE THAN 100% TOTAL
Throughout t h i s r e p o r t , where p e r c e n t a g e s do n o t add t o 100%, i t i s because
of computer rounding, m u l t i p l e answers, o r "not reported," (i.e., respondent
refused t o answer a question). Where (--) a p p e a r s on a t a b l e , i t i n d i c a t e s l e s s
than one-half of 1%.
When r e a d i n g t h e t a b l e s , p e r c e n t s add down when t h e p e r c e n t s i g n s run
a c r o s s t h e t o p of t h e columns. The t a b l e s add a c r o s s when t h e p e r c e n t s i g n s run
down t h e f i r s t column.
DEFINITION OF KEY VARIABLES
Family composition:
1 - married couple w i t h a t l e a s t one c h i l d under 25 y e a r s of age
l i v i n g a t home
2
empty n e s t e r s ; married couple w i t h grown c h i l d r e n n o t l i v i n g a t home,
o r t h e y never had c h i l d r e n and woman i s 45 y e a r s of age o r o l d e r
3 - young couple w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n ; m a r r i e d couple w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n
l i v i n g a t home and woman i s under 45 y e a r s of age
4 - s i n g l e p a r e n t ; a p a r e n t and a t l e a s t one c h i l d under 25 y e a r s of
age l i v i n g i n t h e household
5
one person household
6 - other; roommates, unmarried couples w i t h o r w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n , r e l a t i v e s
l i v i n g t o g e t h e r , married c o u p l e s w i t h a c h i l d 25 y e a r s of age o r o l d e r
i n t h e household and w i t h o u t any minor c h i l d r e n , e t c .
-
-
F~
.
-
Intermarriage:
1 - in-marriage; b o t h spouses born J e w i s h and c u r r e n t l y c o n s i d e r
themselves J e w i s h
2 - c o n v e r s i o n a r y marriage; one spouse n o t b o r n J e w i s h b u t c u r r e n t l y cons i d e r s h i m / h e r s e l f J e w i s h ( i r r e s p e c t i v e of f o r m a l conversion) and t h e
o t h e r spouse born and c u r r e n t l y J e w i s h
3 - mixed marriage; one spouse born and c u r r e n t l y J e w i s h and t h e o t h e r not
born and not c o n s i d e r i n g h i m / h e r s e l f J e w i s h
4 - o t h e r ; p r i m a r i l y c a s e s w i t h m i s s i n g d a t a on one of t h e respondents.
This group was not i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s , s i n c e t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d
v e r y few cases.
Generat ion:
Generation d a t a i s a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e respondent only.
- born o u t s i d e
g e n e r a t i o n - born i n t h e
F i r s t generation
of t h e United S t a t e s
Second
o u t s i d e t h e United S t a t e s
United S t a t e s , b u t a t l e a s t one p a r e n t born
Third g e n e r a t i o n
United S t a t e s
- born
i n t h e United S t a t e s , and b o t h p a r e n t s born i n t h e
Fourth g e n e r a t i o n - born i n t h e United S t a t e s , p a r e n t s born i n t h e United
S t a t e s . and g r a n d p a r e n t s born i n t h e United S t a t e s
STAHDARD ERROR
Since t h i s s t u d y of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community i s based on a sample of t h e
t o t a l population, r a t h e r t h a n on a s t u d y of t h e t o t a l J e w i s h population, t h e
r e s u l t i n g f i g u r e s a r e s u b j e c t t o sampling v a r i a b i l i t y . T h i s c a u s e s e s t i m a t e s
based on a sample t o v a r y by chance. Standard e r r o r i s t h e e s t i m a t e of random
v a r i a t i o n of a sample s t a t i s t i c around i t s t r u e p o p u l a t i o n parameter, which
would b e o b t a i n e d i f d a t a were c o l l e c t e d from t h e whole population. Sampling
v a r i a b i l i t y does n o t b i a s o u r e s t i m a t e s , b u t d e f i n e s a range of confidence t o
i n t e r p r e t t h e sample r e s u l t s .
The f o l l o w i n g c h a r t s a r e g e n e r a l i z e d t a b l e s of sample e r r o r s f o r samples of
v a r i o u s s i z e s and f o r v a r i o u s p r o p o r t i o n s , provided t h a t t h e y were s e l e c t e d a s
s i m p l e random samples. A s i t h a s been e x p l a i n e d , t h e sample d e s i g n u t i l i z e d was
n o t s i m p l e random sampling. However, a s i s common p r a c t i c e i n community
s t u d i e s , t h e s e t a b l e s can b e used a s approximations t o t h e s t a n d a r d e r r o r s f o r
e s t i m a t e s of Jewish p o p u l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s .
-
Chart 4 i n d i c a t e s t h a t given a p e r c e n t a g e answering a q u e s t i o n i n a c e r t a i n
way and t h e t o t a l number of c a s e s on which t h e p e r c e n t a g e i s based, chances a r e
t h a t 95 t i m e s out of 100, t h e r e a l p o p u l a t i o n p e r c e n t a g e ( i f t h e s t u d y covered
t h e whole J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n ) l i e s i n t h e range d e f i n e d by adding and s u b t r a c t i n g
t h e number i n d i c a t e d i n t h e c h a r t t o t h e p e r c e n t a g e o b t a i n e d from t h e sample.
Chart 5 a l l o w s us t o compare measures r e l a t i n g t o d i f f e r e n t subgroups of
t h e population. Again, some of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s observed between subgroups i n
t h e i r responses t o a q u e s t i o n may b e due t o sampling e r r o r , and should n o t b e
regarded a s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .
The c h a r t i n d i c a t e s t h e approximate s i z e
of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between percentages of responses o f
'9 a p a r t i c u l a r
question. Each p a n e l r e f e r s t o d i f f e r e n t p e r c e n t a g e l e v e l s . For example, i f
t h e percentages f o r t h e two subgroups a r e around 20 where t h e f i r s t subgroup
s i z e i s 300 and t h e second i s 400, t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e percentages
between t h e two subgroups must b e a t l e a s t 6% t o b e considered s i g n i f i c a n t a t
t h e 5% confidence l e v e l ( t h e d i f f e r e n c e would occur 95 t i m e s o u t of 100, i f we
r e p e a t e d t h e s t u d y w i t h new samples of s i m i l a r s i z e s ) . A s can b e observed from
t h e c h a r t s , t h e s m a l l e r t h e a c t u a l number of c a s e s i n each subgroup, t h e l a r g e r
t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e percentages between t h e groups must be t o achieve
s i g n i f i c a n c e . Therefore, comparisons i n v o l v i n g s m a l l subgroups should b e done
w i t h caution. F i n a l l y , when u s i n g t h e s e c h a r t s , a t t e n t i o n must be given t o t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e number of c a s e s i n t h e c h a r t s r e f e r t o a c t u a l number of
respondents and n o t t o p r o j e c t e d number of Jewish households o r i n d i v i d u a l s .
+-
CHART 4*
APPROXIPIATION TO STANDARD ERROR OF PROJECTED PERCENTAGES
(95% confidence l e v e l )
Estimated
Percentage
25
50
75
Unweighted Number of Respondents
100 150 200 250 300 400 500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
*This chart and following chart adapted from: Moeher, Herman J . and McTavish, Donald G .
I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s , 3rd e d i t i o n . Boston: Allyn Bacon, 1988.
Descriptive
CHART 5
APPROXIMATION OF SAMPLING ERRORS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES
Number of
Respondents
1000
800 600 500
400
300
200
100
50
25
F o r Percentages Around .05 and .95
For Percentages Around .10 and .90
*The chances a r e o n l y 5 i n 100 t h a t i n a complete enumeration t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s o b t a i n e d between two p e r c e n t a g e s would d i f f e r from
t h e e s t i m a t e d d i f f e r e n c e by as much as t h e p e r c e n t a g e v a l u e
indicated i n t h e table.
CHART 5 (continued)
APPROXIMATION OF SAMPLING ERRORS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCENTAGES
Number of
Respondents
1000
800
600 500 400 300 200 100
50
25
For Percentages Around .50
*The chances a r e o n l y 5 i n 100 t h a t i n a complete enumeration t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s o b t a i n e d between two p e r c e n t a g e s would d i f f e r from
t h e e s t i m a t e d d i f f e r e n c e by a s much a s t h e p e r c e n t a g e v a l u e
indicated i n t h e table.
SECTION 4
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA HIGHLIGHTS
Geographic D i s t r i b u t i o n
- Almost t h r e e q u a r t e r s of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n i s c e n t e r e d i n t h r e e
g e o g r a p h i c a r e a s : 27% of a l l Jews i n D a l l a s r e s i d e i n Near North D a l l a s . 22%
and 23%. r e s p e c t i v e l y . r e s i d e i n F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n and O t h e r
Dallas/Other Suburbs.
-
T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t (13%) of t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n l i v e s i n E a s t and N o r t h e a s t
D a l l a s / W e s t Garland, and 15% l i v e s i n P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n .
Household S i z e
-
Sixty-two p e r c e n t (62%) o f a l l h o u s e h o l d s a r e comprised of one o r two
persons.
-
Almost e q u a l p r o p o r t i o n s of r e s p o n d e n t s aged 25 t o 34 ( 3 8 % ) and t h o s e aged 75
and o l d e r (40%) l i v e i n one-person households, a s do about o n e - t h i r d of 55 t o
64 y e a r o l d s .
- F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n , w i t h 26%, P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n , w i t h 31%, and O t h e r
D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs, w i t h 23%, a r e t h e a r e a s most l i k e l y t o have f o u r - p e r s o n
households.
-
One-person h o u s e h o l d s t e n d t o c l u s t e r i n E a s t and N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s / W e s t
Garland, where 43% of t h e h o u s e h o l d s a r e comprised of p e r s o n s l i v i n g alone.
-
The a v e r a g e household s i z e f o r t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community i s 2.4 persons.
E a s t and N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s / W e s t G a r l a n d h a s t h e l o w e s t a v e r a g e household s i z e .
w i t h 1.9, w h i l e F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n h a s t h e h i g h e s t , w i t h 2.9.
-
Households c o m p r i s e d of two p a r e n t s w i t h c h i l d r e n account f o r 29% o f
households i n D a l l a s .
-
One-person households account f o r 28% of a l l D a l l a s households.
-
Single-parent
-
Empty n e s t e r h o u s e h o l d s c o m p r i s e 19% of a l l households i n D a l l a s , w h i l e young
c o u p l e s w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n a c c o u n t f o r 10% of D a l l a s J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s .
f a m i l i e s make up 2% o f t h e households i n D a l l a s .
-
_-
Place of Birth
-
Ninety-two p e r c e n t (92%) of D a l l a s J e w s a r e n a t i v e - b o r n Americans, and 8% a r e
f o r e i g n born.
-
Forty-two p e r c e n t (42%) of D a l l a s Jews were b o r n i n Texas.
t i o n , 78% were b o r n i n D a l l a s .
-
Of t h i s propor-
The Midwest and New York a r e e a c h t h e b i r t h p l a c e of about o n e - f i f t h of
D a l l a s Jews.
Length o f R e s i d e n c e
- Respondents u n d e r a g e 35 a r e t h e most l i k e l y t o have m i g r a t e d t o t h e Dallas
J e w i s h community s i n c e 1980:
r e s p o n d e n t s aged 25 t o 34.
P-
52% of 1 8 t o 24 y e a r o l d s , and 62% of
-
P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n i s t h e a r e a most l i k e l y t o a t t r a c t newcomers t o D a l l a s .
F i f t y - o n e p e r c e n t (51%) of r e s p o n d e n t s who have moved t o D a l l a s s i n c e 1980
l i v e i n Plano/Carrollton.
-
Almost s e v e n i n t e n r e s p o n d e n t s (69%) have moved t o t h e i r c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e
s i n c e 1980.
-
An overwhelming m a j o r i t y , 972, of 25 t o 34 y e a r c l d s have moved t o t h e i r
c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e s i n c e 1980.
Mobility
-
Seventy-four p e r c e n t (74%) of 25 t o 34 y e a r o l d s , and 58% of 35 t o 44 y e a r
o l d s , a r e l i k e l y t o change r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n t h e n e x t t h r e e y e a r s , compared t o
o n l y 8% o f t h o s e 7 5 o r o l d e r .
- F i f t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t (58%) of r e s p o n d e n t s who a n t i c i p a t e a move w i t h i n t h e
n e x t t h r e e y e a r s w i l l r e l o c a t e w i t h i n t h e Dallas m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a .
- O l d e s t r e s p o n d e n t s , t h o s e aged 65 t o 74 (58%) and 75+ (53%), a r e t h e most
l i k e l y t o a n t i c i p a t e a move t o a n o t h e r s t a t e .
Home Ownership
-
Three-quarters
of a l l r e s p o n d e n t s own t h e i r homes.
-
Home ownership i s h i g h e s t among 45 t o 54 y e a r o l d s (91%), f o l l o w e d c l o s e l y by
55 t o 64 y e a r o l d s ( 8 5 % ) , and 35 t o 44 y e a r o l d s (83%).
-
R e n t e r s a r e most l i k e l y t o l i v e i n E a s t and N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s / W e s t Garland,
w i t h 42%. One-quarter o r l e s s of r e s p o n d e n t s i n a l l o t h e r a r e a s a r e r e n t e r s .
Sex and Age D i s t r i b u t i o n
- F i f t y - o n e p e r c e n t (51%) o f D a l l a s Jews a r e male, and 49% a r e female.
-
C h i l d r e n u n d e r 1 8 y e a r s o f a g e a c c o u n t f o r 23% of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h
population:
9% a r e u n d e r 6 y e a r s of age, 8% a*, , e t w e e n t n e a g e s of 6 and
12, and 6% a r e aged 13 t o 17.
-
Young a d u l t s , aged 25 t o 44, a c c o u n t f o r 40% of t h e p o p u l a t i o n .
-
Eleven p e r c e n t (11%) of t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n i s o v e r t h e a g e of 65,
i n g 3% who a r e o v e r a g e 75.
includ-
Marital Status
- Sixty-nine p e r c e n t (69%) o f a d u l t s 1 8 and o l d e r a r e m a r r i e d .
20% have n e v e r
b e e n m a r r i e d , 7% a r e d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d , and 4% a r e widowed.
-
N i n e t y p e r c e n t (90%) o f i n d i v i d u a l s b e t w e e n t h e a g e s of 1 8 and 24, and 33% o f
t h o s e aged 25 t o 34, have n e v e r b e e n m a r r i e d .
- Of Dallas J e w i s h a d u l t s aged 25 o r o l d e r who have b e e n d i v o r c e d , 71% of m a l e s
and 78% of f e m a l e s have b e e n d i v o r c e d one t i m e , w h i l e 18% o f males and 12% o f
f e m a l e s have b e e n d i v o r c e d two o r more t i m e s .
-
-
The g r e a t m a j o r i t y of D a l l a s a d u l t s have b e e n m a r r i e d o n l y one t i m e :
80% of
m a l e s and 82% o f f e m a l e s . However, 20% of m a l e s and 17% of f e m a l e s have b e e n
m a r r i e d two o r more t i m e s , i n c l u d i n g 4% of m a l e s and 2% of f e m a l e s who have
been married t h r e e times.
F i f t y - t w o p e r c e n t (52%) o f m a l e s and 29% o f f e m a l e s w e r e o l d e r t h a n 25 b e f o r e
t h e y were m a r r i e d .
Plans f o r Childbearing
-
F o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t (45%) o f women aged 25 t o 3 4 a n t i c i p a t e h a v i n g o r a d o p t i n g
a c h i l d w i t h i n t h e next t h r e e years.
-
Twelve p e r c e n t (12%) of women aged 35 t o 4 4 p l a n t o have o r a d o p t a c h i l d
w i t h i n t h e next t h r e e years.
-
Forty-two p e r c e n t (42%) o f women u n d e r a g e 45 p l a n t o have two c h i l d r e n i n
t h e i r l i f e t i m e , w h i l e 22% p l a n t h r e e o r more c h i l d r e n .
Twelve p e r c e n t (12%) o f women u n d e r a g e 45 p l a n on h a v i n g one o r no c h i l d r e n
i n t h e i r l i f e t i m e : 7% p l a n on h a v i n g o n l y one c h i l d , w h i l e 5% p l a n on h a v i n g
no c h i l d r e n .
-
-A
Secular Education
-
Among c h i l d r e n younger t h a n 6 y e a r s of age, 45% a r e e n r o l l e d i n school. Of
t h i s p r o p o r t i o n , 4% a r e i n p u b l i c s c h o o l s , 57% a r e e n r o l l e d i n p r i v a t e J e w i s h
s c h o o l s , 2% a r e i n p r i v a t e C h r i s t i a n s c h o o l s , and 38% a r e e n r o l l e d i n p r i v a t e
non-religious s c h o o l s .
- Among c h i l d r e n o l d e r t h a n 6 y e a r s of age, a m a j o r i t y a r e e n r o l l e d i n p u b l i c
schools. S i x t y - f o u r p e r c e n t (64%) of 6 t o 12 y e a r o l d s and 80% of 13 t o 17
year o l d s a t t e n d p u b l i c schools.
Secular Education Attainment
-
F o r t y p e r c e n t (40%) of a l l r e s p o n d e n t s o v e r t h e age of 25 s a y t h a t t h e
h i g h e s t l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n t h e y have a c h i e v e d i s g r a d u a t i n g from c o l l e g e .
Another 14% were awarded a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e , and 11%have r e c e i v e d a
d o c t o r a t e / p r o f e s s i o n a l degree.
-
About e q u a l p r o p o r t i o n s of f e m a l e s and m a l e s have o b t a i n e d b o t h b a c h e l o r ' s
and m a s t e r ' s degrees: however, males a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y more l i k e l y t h a n
f e m a l e s t o have r e c e i v e d a d o c t o r a t e / p r o f e s s i o n a l degree: 17% of men have
done s o , compared t o o n l y 5% of women.
Labor Force Participation
-
-
Seventy-eight p e r c e n t (78%) of males a r e employed f u l l - t i m e , 4% a r e employed
p a r t - t i m e , and 10% a r e r e t i r e d .
Forty-nine p e r c e n t (49%) of f e m a l e s a r e
employed f u l l - t i m e , 15% a r e employed p a r t - t i m e , 11%a r e r e t i r e d , and 17% a r e
homemakers.
Equal p r o p o r t i o n s of m a l e s and f e m a l e s a r e employed i n p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l t i e s , w i t h 29% each.
-
Nineteen p e r c e n t (19%) of J e w i s h a d u l t s a r e e x e c u t i v e s / m a n a g e r s . However, a
s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of males (21%) a r e e x e c u t i v e s / m a n a g e r s t h a n a r e
f e m a l e s (18%).
-
About 10% of m a l e s and 13% o f f e m a l e s aged 18 and o v e r e x p e r i e n c e d unemployment d u r i n g t h e y e a r p r i o r t o t h e survey.
Disability
-
About 8% of Dallas r e s i d e n t s have a h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n which l i m i t s o r p r e v e n t s
employment. e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s , o r d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s .
-
Twenty-five p e r c e n t (25%) of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a l i m i t i n g h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n
r e q u i r e a s s i s t a n c e on a d a i l y b a s i s .
Household Income
Annual median income f o r t h e e n t i r e D a l l a s J e w i s h community i s $49.050.
Median income i s h i g h e s t i n Near North D a l l a s , w i t h $52.260. and l o w e s t i n
E a s t and N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West Garland, w i t h $32.965 p e r year.
S i n g l e p a r e n t s . w i t h median incomes of $30.845. and s i n g l e p e r s o n s . w i t h
median incomes of $28.528, have t h e l o w e s t a n n u a l median income. T h i s
compares w i t h $66.223 f o r households c o m p r i s e d of two p a r e n t s w i t h c h i l d r e n .
$50,118 f o r empty n e s t e r s . and $53.718 f o r h o u s e h o l d s c o m p r i s e d of young
c o u p l e s who have n o t y e t s t a r t e d t h e i r f a m i l i e s .
Twenty-six p e r c e n t (26%) of h o u s e h o l d s have y e a r l y incomes of more t h a n
$60,000, w h i l e a n a l m o s t e q u a l p r o p o r t i o n . 23%. e a r n less t h a n $30.000 p e r
year.
Among households w i t h r e s p o n d e n t s aged 75 o r o l d e r . t h e g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n
(35%) e a r n l e s s t h a n $20.000 p e r y e a r .
Twenty-six p e r c e n t (26%) of r e s p o n d e n t s b e t w e e n t h e a g e s of 45 and 5 4 l i v e i n
h o u s e h o l d s w i t h y e a r l y incomes i n e x c e s s of $80.000.
T h i s compares w i t h 18%
o r less of r e s p o n d e n t s i n a l l o t h e r a g e g r o u p s w i t h a n n u a l e a r n i n g s i n e x c e s s
of $80.000.
Households which e a r n l e s s t h a n $20.000 p e r y e a r a r e most l i k e l y t o b e i n
E a s t and N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West Garland.
F a m i l i e s w i t h incomes of o v e r $80.000 p e r y e a r a r e most l i k e l y t o b e i n
Near North Dallas.
SECTION 5
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. HOUSEHOLD SIZE,
AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION OF !lXE JEWISH POPULATION
The f o l l o w i n g s t u d y of t h e J e w i s h community of G r e a t e r Dallas i s based on
d a t a g a t h e r e d from 977 r e s p o n d e n t s , which r e p r e s e n t a p r o j e c t e d 15,260 J e w i s h
households, i n c l u d i n g a p r o j e c t e d J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n of 36,883 i n d i v i d u a l s , i n
t h e g r e a t e r metropolitan area. This e s t i m a t e of t h e Jewish population includes
a l l non-Jewish s p o u s e s and c h i l d r e n o f b o r n Jews, b u t e x c l u d e s u n r e l a t e d nonJews l i v i n g w i t h b o r n Jews.
The J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n of D a l l a s r e f l e c t s changes which are s e e n i n t h e
United S t a t e s J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n n a t i o n w i d e . A s i n o t h e r a r e a s of t h e c o u n t r y ,
household s i z e and c o m p o ~ i t i o namong today's Dallas Jews are d r a m a t i c a l l y
d i f f e r e n t from t y p i c a l J e w i s h households t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s ago. Because younger
Jews i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a r e d e l a y i n g m a r r i a g e , b e c a u s e o l d e r Jews are l i v i n g
l o n g e r and o f t e n s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e s b y many y e a r s , and b e c a u s e d i v o r c e r a t e s a r e
growing among Jews, t h e s i n g l e - p e r s o n household h a s a t t a i n e d a l a r g e r p l a c e i n
t h e J e w i s h l i f e c y c l e . The s i n g l e - p e r s o n household i s made up o f s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t i v e groups: t h e n e v e r m a r r i e d s , t h e d i v o r c e d , and t h e widowed. Each of
t h e s e groups, a s i n d i c a t e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h i s s t u d y , have t h e i r own p r o f i l e of
needs, e x p e c t a t i o n s , and b e h a v i o r s v i s - a - v i s t h e J e w i s h community.
=
-.
-
The Dallas J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n i s c e n t e r e d i n t h r e e areas, w i t h a l m o s t t h r e e of
e v e r y f o u r D a l l a s Jews l i v i n g e i t h e r i n Near North Dallas, F a r North D a l l a s /
Richardson, o r Other D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs.
Single-person households a r e most p r o m i n e n t i n E a s t and N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West
Garland, where t h e y comprise 43% o f a l l J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s .
-
Of t h e 4,464 J e w i s h households made up of m a r r i e d c o u p l e s w i t h c h i l d r e n , 56%
a r e four-person households.
One-quarter (26%) a r e t h r e e - p e r s o n households,
and 18% a r e f i v e o r more p e r s o n households.
-
Nine o u t o f t e n Dallas Jewish widows l i v e a l o n e .
-
The a v e r a g e number of p e r s o n s i n D a l l a s J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s i s 2.4.
Average
household s i z e r a n g e s from a low of 1.9 p e r s o n s i n E a s t o r N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s /
West Garland t o a h i g h of 2.9 p e r s o n s i n F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n .
A
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRImION
Almost t h r e e - q u a r t e r s (72%) of D a l l a s Jews l i v e i n Near North D a l l a s (27%).
F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n (22%). and Other D a l l a s / ~ t h e r Suburbs (23%).
The
remainder l i v e i n E a s t and Northeast Dallas/West Garl-and (13%). and Plano/
C a r r o l l t o n (15%).
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS
BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
Geographic Area
F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n
E a s t and Northeast D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Total Dallas Area
Actual Number
i n Households
Interviewed
Projected
T o t a l Number
of Jews
Projected
T o t a l Number
of Households
Percent
of Jewish
Population
1
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1-
-
Almost t h r e e - q u a r t e r s (73%) of D a l l a s s i n g l e s l i v e alone. About o n e - f i f t h
(19%) l i v e w i t h one roommate, and t h e 9% l i v e w i t h t h r e e o r more a d d i t i o n a l
persons
.
1
-
Ninety p e r c e n t (90%) of t h e D a l l a s widowed Jewish p o p u l a t i o n l i v e s a l o n e .
I
TABLE 2
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1
A c t u a l Number P r o j e c t e d
1
2
3
4
5
6+
of Respondents Number of
Interviewed
Households Person Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons T o t a l
977
Total
15,260
28%
4.464
2.901
0%
0%
1.583
353
4.258
1.701
0%
0%
100%
0%
Age o f Respondent
18 - 24
25 - 3 4
35
44
54
45
55 - 6 4
65 - 7 4
75 +
-
~ e o g r a p h i cArea
F a r North Dallas/
Richardson
E. & N.E. D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other D a l l a s / O t h e r
Suburbs
Household C o q o s i t i o n
Couple w/ c h i l d r e n 297
Empty n e s t e r s
199
Young c o u p l e w/o
children
88
Single parent
32
Single person
254
107
Other
Harital S t a t u s
Married
Never m a r r i e d
Divorced/separated
Widowed
=-ounding
error
628
17 9
103
67
-less
9.614
3.052
1.618
976
t h a n one-half
73%
6 1%
90%
of 1%
34
13
20
5
1
Over o n e - q u a r t e r (28%) of a l l h o u s e h o l d s h a s o n l y one p e r s o n l i v i n g i n
them. However, o n l y 12% of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n l i v e s i n t h e s e onep e r s o n households.
I n c o n t r a s t , two-person households c o m p r i s e a b o u t o n e - t h i r d
of D a l l a s J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s (34%), b u t a c c o u n t f o r ?.QY of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h
population.
T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t (13%) of D a l l a s J e w i s h households have t h r e e
p e r s o n s l i v i n g i n them, i n c l u d i n g 16% of D a l l a s J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s . The l a r g e s t
p r o p o r t i o n of D a l l a s i n d i v i d u a l s , 32%, l i v e i n four-person households, which
make up 20% of D a l l a s J e w i s h households.
TABLE 3
PROPORTION OF INDIVIDUALS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Household S i z e
One-person household
Two-person h o u s e h o l d s
Three-person h o u s e h o l d s
Four-person h o u s e h o l d s
Five-person households
S i x o r more p e r s o n s i n household
Total
*rounding e r r o r
Proport ion
o f Households
Proport i o n
of I n d i v i d u a l s
28%
34
13
20
5
1
101%*
100%
.
n
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Household t y p e s i n D a l l a s t e n d t o b e p o l a r i z e d by g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n . The
l a r g e s t households t e n d t o b e c e n t e r e d i n F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n (2.9) and
P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n (2.8). w h i l e t h e s m a l l e s t households a r e g e n e r a l l y found i n
E a s t and N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s / W e s t Garland (1.9).
TABLE 4
Geographic Area
Average S i z e
E a s t and N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
O t h e r D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs
2.2
2.9
Total Dallas Area
2.4
1.9
2.8
2.5
HOUSEHOLD CQHPOSITION
-
Nearly one-fifth
(19%) of D a l l a s J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s a r e empty n e s t e r s .
One out of t e n D a l l a s J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s i s made up of a young c o u p l e who have
n o t y e t had c h i l d r e n .
TABLE 5
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
A c t u a l Number P r o j e c t e d Near
Far North
of Respondents Number of North
Dallas/
Interviewed
Households Dallas R i c h a r d s o n
Other
E. & N.E.
Dallas/
Dallas/
Plano/
Other
W. Garland C a r r o l l t o n Suburbs T o t a l
Couple w/
children
297
4,464
20%
43%
16%
48%
29%
29%
Empty n e s t e r s
199
2,901
33
14
11
9
15
19
Young c o u p l e
w/o c h i l d r e n
88
1,584
5
10
13
9
18
10
Single parent
32
353
3
3
3
3
0
5
S i n g l e person
25 4
4.258
28
17
43
23
27
28
Other
107
1.701
10
13
14
7
11
11
Total
977
15.260
100%
100%
99%*
100%
*rounding e r r o r
99X*
-
99%*
TABLE 7
PLACE OF BIRTH WITHIN UNITED STATES
A c t u a l Number i n
Households I n t e r v i e w e d
P r o j e c t e d Number
6
6-12 13-17
75+ Total
-18-24
-25-34
-35-44
-45-54
-55-64
- 65-74
-185
188
146
184
370
435
250
173
169
3.180 2.689
1.937
2,806
6,457
7.011
3.624
2.369
2.532
4%
3
5
13
2%
3
14
13
16
52
0
6%
12
7
20
18
37
0
8%
5
14
23
15
36
--
11%
4
7
21
23
33
4%
4
12
24
31
24
2
8%
1
6
23
33
29
0
5%
2
8
27
24
35
0
5%
2
14
24
24
31
0
-
100%
100%
100%
101%*
100%
101%*
100%
100%
2%
7
South
West/Southwest
Northeas t/Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
New York
Texas
Don't know/refused
3
2
84
0
Tot a1
99%* 102%*
*rounding e r r o r
1
-less
6
71
0
t h a n one-half
A
99%*
63
2.163
880 33.485
6%
5
9
19
19
42
of 1%
TABLE 8
PROPORTION OF INDIVIDUALS BORN IN TEXAS, WHO WERE BORN I N DALLAS
Born i n D a l l a s
~ o b to r n i n Dallas
Don ' t know/re f u s ed
Total
6
6-12 13-17
75+ Total
-18-24
-25-34
-35-44
- 45-54
- 55-64
- 65-74
-148
118
2.527 1,858
73
69
121
125
53
47
55
19**
828
1,016
1,038
2,242
2.287
821
666
854
243
13.552
97%
3
0
94%
6
0
83%
17
0
89%
11
0
70%
30
0
59%
41
0
72%
28
0
60%
40
0
70%
26
3
58%
42
0
78%
22
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%*
100%
100%
*rounding e r r o r
**Small sample s i z e s h o u l d b e viewed w i t h c a u t i o n by r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d o n l y f o r purpose of
showing i m p o r t a n t t r e n d .
RESIDENCE AND MOBILI!LY
Length of Residence in the Dallas Area
Twenty-seven p e r c e n t (27%) of r e s p o n d e n t s moved t o Dallas d u r i n g t h e 1970s
( a t o t a l of 4.120 households). and a n o t h e r 36% moved t o D a l l a s between 1980 and
1988 ( a t o t a l of 5.493 households).
Respondents aged 25 t o 3 4 were most l i k e l y t o have moved i n t o t h e D a l l a s
a r e a d u r i n g t h e 1980s. Repondents aged 35 t o 44. 42%. and 45 t o 54. 38%. were
most l i k e l y t o have moved t o D a l l a s i n t h e 1970s. Almost h a l f of r e s p o n d e n t s
aged 65 t o 74 (45%) and o v e r o n e - t h i r d (37%) of r e s p o n d e n t s aged 55 t o 6 4 moved
t o D a l l a s b e f o r e 1960.
-
Almost t w o - t h i r d s (63%) of D a l l a s 1 J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n moved i n t o D a l l a s d u r i n g
t h e 1970s and 1980s.
- Almost t w o - t h i r d s (62%) of r e s p o n d e n t s aged 25 t o 34. r e p r e s e n t i n g 4.453
households. moved i n t o D a l l a s d u r i n g t h e 1980s.
-
--
-
The l a r g e s t number of r e s p o n d e n t s aged 35 t o 44. 42%. r e p r e s e n t i n g 4.202
householdss moved i n t o D a l l a s d u r i n g t h e 1970s; a n o t h e r 25% a r r i v e d between
1980 and 1984.
One-third (32%) of p e r s o n s l i v i n g i n Near North D a l l a s moved t o D a l l a s b e f o r e
1960. and a n o t h e r 13% of Near North D a l l a s r e s i d e n t s have a l w a y s l i v e d i n
Dallas.
The l a r g e s t group of p e r s o n s who moved t o D a l l a s i n t h e e a r l y 1980s l i v e s i n
P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n . w i t h 37%.
TABLE 9
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN DALLAS AREA
Actual Number Projected
Don't
Before 1960- 1970- 1980- 1985- Know/
Always
Interviewed
Households Lived Here 1960 1969 1979 1984 1988 Ref. T o t a l
------
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Age of Respondent
18 - 24
34
25
35
44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65
74
-
-
75 +
Geographic Area
Far North Dallas/
Richardson
E . & N.E. Dallas/
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other Dallas/Other
Suburbs
*rounding error
977
15.260
11%
16
9
27
22
14
1
100%
Length of Residence at Current Address
F i v e p e r c e n t (5%) of t h e g e n e r a l D a l l a s J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n moved t o t h e i r
c u r r e n t a d d r e s s b e f o r e 1960. T h i s group is l a r g e l y comprised of o l d e r a d u l t s .
One-fifth (21%) of r e s p o n d e n t s aged 65 t o 74 and o n e - t h i r d (32%) of r e s p o n d e n t s
o v e r age 75 have l i v e d a t t h e i r c u r r e n t a d d r e s s s i n c e b e f o r e 1960.
T h i r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t (33%) of respondents aged 55 t o 64 moved t o t h e i r
c u r r e n t a d d r e s s d u r i n g t h e 1970s. F o r t y p e r c e n t (40%) moved t h e r e d u r i n g t h e
1980s.
T h r e e - q u a r t e r s (73%) of p e r s o n s aged 25 t o 34 moved t o t h e i r c u r r e n t
r e s i d e n c e v e r y r e c e n t l y . between 1985 t o 1988.
TABLE 10
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE AT CURRENT ADDRESS
Don ' t
Always
Before 1960- 1970- 1980- 1985- now/
Interviewed
Households Lived Here 1960 1969 1979 1984 1988 Ref. T o t a l
------
Total
.
.
*
Male
Female
Age of Respondent
18 - 24
25
34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65
74
75 +
-
-
Geographic Area
F a r North D a l l a s /
Richardson
E. & N.E. D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other Dallas/Other
Suburbs
*rounding e r r o r
--less
45
255
27 1
135
108
112
51
763
4.502
4.257
1.816
1.511
1.724
687
1
11
15
16
10
15
3
22
40
33
30
20
20
24
37
27
17
15
23
61
73
40
20
23
16
12
--
5
2
4
100%
100%
101P
9923
100%
100%
101%*
347
4.563
13
13
26
18
28
1
99%*
277
2.808
0%
0
2
20
29
49
--
100%
153
121
2.442
2.030
0%
0%
3
1
6
0
17
22
30
32
43
45
1
0
100%
100%
79
3.417
0%
2
0
14
27
55
2
100%
t h a n one-half
of 1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-
0
0
1
1
7
21
32
3
-
0
0
0
Likelihood of Mope Within N e x t Three Years
About h a l f of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s s a y t h e y a r e v e r y o r somewhat l i k e l y t o move
w i t h i n t h e n e x t t h r e e y e a r s . Respondents u n d e r a g e -5 and m a r r l e a c o u p l e s w i t h
c h i l d r e n under age 18 l i v i n g a t home a r e much more l i k e l y t o p l a n a move t h a n
a r e o l d e r Jews, widows, and empty n e s t e r s . The t h r e e groups most l i k e l y t o move
a r e s i n g l e s , s i n g l e p a r e n t s . and m a r r i e d c o u p l e s who have n o t y e t had c h i l d r e n .
-
About h a l f (51%) of c o u p l e s w i t h c h i l d r e n u n d e r 18 l i v i n g a t home s a y t h e y
w i l l o r may move w i t h i n t h e n e x t t h r e e y e a r s .
-
Two-thirds (67%) of empty n e s t e r s whose grown c h i l d r e n have l e f t home, and
68% of widows s a y t h e y are n o t a t a l l l i k e l y t o move i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .
-
Young c o u p l e s who have n o t y e t begun t h e i r f a m i l i e s e x p r e s s t h e s t r o n g e s t
e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e y w i l l move (46%) o r may move (24%) w i t h i n t h e n e x t t h r e e
years.
TABLE 11
LIKELIHOOD OF MOVE WITHIN NEXT THREE YEARS
A c t u a l Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
Projected
Number of
Households
97 7
15.260
Total
Somewhat
Likely
Not A t A l l
Likely
Don't
Know/
Ref.
2 9%
21
47
4
4.563
2.808
17%
2 9%
17
20
63
49
3
3
121
2,442
2.030
45%
3 2%
18
26
37
39
1
3
79
3,417
3 2%
26
34
7
Very
Likely
Sex
Male
Female
Age o f Respondent
18 25 35 45 55 65 75 +
24
34
44
54
64
74
Geographic Area
E. 6 N.E. D a l l a s 1
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other DallasIOther
Suburbs
45
255
27 1
135
108
112
51
3 47
277
153
Total
101%*
TABLE 11 ( c o n t i n u e d )
LIKELIHOOD OF MOVE WITHIN NEXT THREE YEARS
A c t u a l Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
Couple w/ c h i l d r e n
Empty n e s t e r s
Young c o u p l e w/o c h i l d r e n
Single parent
Single person
Other
Marital S t a t u s
Married
Never m a r r i e d
Divorced/Separated
Widowed
*rounding e r r o r
Projected
Number of
Households
Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Not A t A l l
Likely
Don't
Know/
Ref.
Total
D e s t i n a t i o n of Respondents Who Are Likely t o H w e Within Next Three Years
O f t h e p r o j e c t e d 7,602 households which expect t h a t t h e y a r e v e r y o r somewhat l i k e l y t o move w i t h i n t h e next t h r e e y e a r s , w e l l over h a l f (58%) say t h e y
More t h a n one-quarter (26%) s a y
w i l l move elsewhere w i t h i n t h e D a l l a s area.
they w i l l move out of s t a t e , and 9% a r e not s u r e of t h e i r plans.
Respondents a n t i c i p a t i n g r e t i r e m e n t a r e t h e group most l i k e l y t o say t h e y
w i l l move out of t h e D a l l a s area. F i f t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t (58%) of p o t e n t i a l movers
aged 65 t o 74, and 37% of empty n e s t e r s s a y t h e y w i l l move t o a n o t h e r s t a t e . I n
c o n t r a s t , persons under age 6 4 a r e overwhelmingly l i k e l y t o s a y they w i l l move
w i t h i n t h e D a l l a s area.
Of couples w i t h c h i l d r e n who plan t o move, 60% w i l l move w i t h i n Dallas, 22%
w i l l move out of s t a t e . Sixty-three p e r c e n t (63%) of couples who do not y e t
have c h i l d r e n w i l l move w i t h i n D a l l a s and 18% w i l l move o u t of s t a t e .
Almost h a l f (47%) of s i n g l e s who p l a n t o move w i l l move w i t h i n t h e D a l l a s
area, one-third (33%) w i l l move out of s t a t e , and 4% w i l l move elsewhere i n
Texas.
TABLE 1 2
i
a
DESTINATION OF RESPONDENTS WHO ARE LIKELY TO MOVE WITHIN NEXT THREE YEARS
Total
Actual Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
Projected
Number of
Households
Within
Dallas
Area
45 2
7,602
5 8%
26
179
146
39
32
25
5**
3 80
3,3 14
2,463
547
418
426
54
6 6%
5 8%
5 8%
75%
5 9%
40%
Elsewhere
in
Texas
Another
State
Another
Country
Don't
Know/
Ref.
5
26
2
9
100%
0
5
5
0
10
3
29
23
26
20
22
58
0
1
4
0
0
0
5
12
7
5
9
0
100%
99%*
100%
100%
100%
101%*
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Age of Respondent
18 - 24
25 - 3 4
35 - 44
45 - 5 4
64
55
65 - 7 4
75 +
-
*rounding e r r o r
**Sample s i z e t o o small t o p r o j e c t t o e n t i r e population.
TABLE 1 2 ( c o n t i n u e d )
DESTIYATION OF RESPONDENTS WHO ARE LIKELY TO MOVE WITHIN NEXT THREE YEARS
A c t u a l Number
o f Respondents
Interviewed
Geographic Area
Richards on
E. & N.E. D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other Dallas/Other
Suburbs
Household C o q o s i t i o n
Empty n e s t e r s
Young c o u p l e w/o
children
- a n g l e parent
n g l e person
Other
-
Marital S t a t u s
Married
Never married
Divorced/Separated
Widowed
-
Projected
Number of
Households
Within
Dallas
Area
Elsewhere
in
Texas
Another
State
Another
Country
Don't
Know/
Ref.
23
33
25
2
3
0
8
14
3
Total
116
128
94
69
45
133
47
58
17
144
53
25 6
127
54
15**
4.272
2.106
958
266
6 2%
47%
6 6%
*rounding e r r o r
**Sample s i z e t o o s m a l l t o p r o j e c t t o e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n .
5
4
6
100%
101%*
100%
Destination Within Dallas Area of Respondents Likely t o Hove Within N m t
Three Years
The m a j o r i t y of a l l p e r s o n s who s a i d t h e y would move w i t h i n D a l l a s d i d n o t
know e x a c t l y where t h e i r d e s t i n a t i o n might be. However. of t h o s e who d i d have
a n i d e a of t h e i r chosen new l o c a t i o n , c o u p l e s w i t h c l ~ i ~ a r es an i d t h e y w e r e most
l i k e l y t o move t o P l a n o (13%). R i c h a r d s o n (12%). A l l e n (6%). C a r r o l l t o n (6%). o r
Bedf o r d (5%).
-
N e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s of D a l l a s h o u s e h o l d s p l a n n i n g a move do n o t know where t h e y
w i l l move.
-
Of h o u s e h o l d s p l a n n i n g a move, a b o u t 900 p r o j e c t e d h o u s e h o l d s s a y t h a t t h e y
a r e p l a n n i n g t o move t o P l a n o and Richardson.
-
Of t h e 749 h o u s e h o l d s b e t w e e n t h e a g e s of 25 and 3 4 who know t h e i r
d e s t i n a t i o n . 230 a r e moving t o Plano. and 1 9 2 a r e moving t o Richardson.
-
TABLE 13
.
I
DESTINATION WITHIN DALLAS OF RESPONDENTS LIKELY TO MOVE WITHIN NEXT THREE YEARS
A c t u a l Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
Male FemaleTotal
110
158
268
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Total
18**
108
81
28
17**
12***
2***
266
of Households
1.799
Allen
Arlington
Bedford
Carrollton
Cedar H i l l
Colleyville
Coppell
Desoto
Duncanville
Garland
Hutchins
Ining
Keller
Lewisville
+3cKinney
. i o r t h Richland
Plano
Richard son
Roanoke
Rowlet t
Wylie
Don't know/ref.
Total
103%*
--less t h a n one-half of 1%
*rounding e r r o r
**Small s a m p l e s i z e s h o u l d be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n by r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d o n l y f o r
purpose of showing g e n e r a l t r e n d .
***Sample s i z e t o o small t o p r o j e c t t o e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n .
TABLE 13 (continued)
.
-
Near North
Dallas
Actual Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
FarNorth
Dallas/
Richardson
E. & N . E .
Dallas/
W . Garland
an0
Carrollccn
Other D a l l a s /
Other Suburbs T o t a l
-
67
77
60
37
26
267
868
829
950
625
1.138
4.410
100%
102%*
100%
lOl%*
103%*
100%
of Households
Allen
Arlington
Bedford
Carrollton
Cedar H i l l
Colleyville
Coppell
Desoto
Duncanville
Garland
Hutchins
Irving
Keller
Lewisville
McKinney
North Richland
Plano
Richardson
Roanoke
Rowlet t
Wylie
Don't know/ref.
Total
*rounding e r r o r
-less
t h a n one-half
of 1%
A
Under $20.000- $30.000- $40.000- $50.000- $60,000- $80.000$20.000 $29.999 $39.999 $49.999 $59.999 $79.999 $124.999 $125.000+ T o t a l
-
Actual Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
of Households
Allen
Arlington
Bedford
Carrollton
Cedar H i l l
Colleyville
Coppell
Desoto
Duncanville
Garland
Hutchins
Irving
Keller
Lewisville
a
IcKinney
North Richland
Plano
Richardson
Roanoke
Rowlet t
Wylie
Don ' t know/ref
Tot a1
30
35
37
31
23**
28
27
21**
232
505
602
671
656
417
474
364
281
3.970
101%*
101%*
100%
100%
101%*
103%*
100%
99%*
100%
.
*rounding e r r o r
--less
t h a n one-half of 1%
**Small s a m p l e s i z e s h o u l d be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n by r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d o n l y f o r
purpose of showing g e n e r a l trend.
-=
Married
A c t u a l Number
of Respondents
Interviewed
of Households
Never
Married
Divorced/
Separated
150
64
32
2,543
940
608
101%*
101%*
100%
WicLdea
lo***
183
Total
256
4,274
Allen
Arlington
Bedf o r d
Carrollton
Cedar H i l l
Colley-ville
Coppell
Desoto
Duncanville
Garland
Hutchins
Irving
Keller
Lewisville
McKinney
North R i c h l a n d
Plano
Richardson
Roanoke
Rowlet t
Wylie
Don 't know/ref ,
Total
--less
t h a n one-half of 1%
*rounding e r r o r
***Sample s i z e t o o s m a l l t o p r o j e c t t o e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n ,
100%
.
-
Couple
w/ C h i l d r e n
A c t u a l Number
o f Respondents
Interviewed
of Households
Allen
Arlington
Bedf o r d
Carrollton
Cedar H i l l
Colleyville
Coppell
Desoto
Duncanville
Garland
Hutchins
Im i n g
Keller
Lewisville
McKinney
North R i c h l a n d
Plano
Richardson
Roanoke
Rowlett
Wylie
Don't know/ref
Empty
Nesters
Young Couple
w/o C h i l d r e n
Single
Parent
Single
Person
15***
73
80
25
36
1.355
410
695
102%*
100%
191
Other
Total
39
268
1.275
514
4.440
100%
101%*
100%
--
Total
.
99%*
*rounding e r r o r
***Sample s i z e t o o s m a l l t o p r o j e c t t o e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n ,
HOHE OWNERSHIP STATUS
Three-quarters (75%) of D a l l a s Jews own t h e i r own home and one-quarter
(25%) a r e r e n t e r s . Households most l i k e l y t o be r e n t i n g i n c l u d e respondents
between t h e ages of 25 t o 34. 41%. s i n g l e persons, 52%. and s i n g l e p a r e n t s . 37%.
aixty-onr p e r c e n t (61%)
Of couples without c h i l d r e n . 29% a r e i n r e n t a l u n l r s .
of t h e l e a s t a f f l u e n t households a r e i n r e n t a l u n i t s ; however. even among t h e
more a f f l u e n t householdss s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n s o c c c r y r e n t a l residences:
a l m o s t o n e - f i f t h (18%) of households e a r n i n g between $50.000 and $59.999
annually. f o r example, a r e r e n t i n g .
-
Forty-one p e r c e n t (41%) of persons ages 25 t o 34 r e n t t h e i r r e s i d e n c e .
- Nearly two-thirds
(61%) of households e a r n i n g under $20.000, and n e a r l y h a l f
(46%) of t h o s e e a r n i n g between $20.000 and $29.999 a n n u a l l y r e n t t h e i r
housing
.
- More than h a l f (55%) of s i n g l e s a r e r e n t i n g .
TABLE 14
HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
Actual Number P r o j e c t e d
of Respondents Number of Residence Residence
Interviewed
Households Rented
Owned
Total
Total
Age of Respondent
18 25 35 45 55 65 75 +
24
34
44
54
64
74
Geographic Area
Richardson
E. & N.E. D a l l a s /
West Garland
Plano/Carrollton
Other D a l l a s / O t h e r
Suburbs
*rounding e r r o r
-
.
.
TABLE 14 ( c o n t i n u e d ]
of Respondents Number of Residence Residence
Interviewed
Households Rented
Owned
Total
Household Income+
Under $20.000
$20.000 - $29.999
$30.000 - $39.999
$40.000 - $49.999
$50,000 - $59.999
$60.000 - $79.999
$80.000 - $124.999
$125.000 +
Empty n e s t e r s
Young couple w/o
children
Single parent
S i n g l e person
Other
Marital S t a t u s
Married
Never married
Divorced/separated
Widowed
297
199
4.464
2.901
6%
13%
94
87
100%
100%
88
32
254
107
1.583
353
4.258
1.701
29%
37%
52%
19%
71
63
48
81
100%
100%
100%
100%
628
179
103
67
9.614
3.052
1.618
976
12%
55%
43%
27%
88
45
57
73
100%
100%
100%
100%
+Data f o r respondents r e p o r t i n g income only.
SECTION 7
DEMOGRAPEKC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
DISTRIBUTION OF TRE POPULATION BY SEX
The s e x of D a l l a s J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s i s s l i g h t l y w e i g h t e d t o w a r d men, 51%.
The o n l y o t h e r community f o r which d a t a are a v a i l a b l e i n w h i c h men c o m p r i s e a
l a r g e r s h a r e of t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s Washington. D.C..
w h e r e 52% of t h e J e w i s h
p o p u l a t i o n a r e male.
TABLE 1 5
SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE DALLAS JEWISH POPULATION
Sex
-
Projected
Number
Male
Female
18.810
18.073
Tota1
36.883
Projected
Proport ion
of P o p u l a t i o n
100%
-
DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX
Almost one-quarter (23%) of J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s i n D a l l a s a r e c h i l d r e n
under age 18. E i g h t p e r c e n t (8%) of D a l l a s ' J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n a r e young a d u l t s
aged 1 8 t o 24. The p e r c e n t a g e s of D a l l a s 1 youngest and o l d e s t J e w i s h c i t i z e n s
9% a r e c h i l d r e n under a g e 6 , and 11%a r e above age 65.
a r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y equal:
Approximately o n e - f i f t h each of J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s i n D a l l a s a r e aged 25 t o 3 4
( 1 9 % ) a n d 35 t o 4 4 ( 2 1 % ) . A n o t h e r 1 8 % a r e i n t h e 45 t o 6 4 a g e c a t e g o r y .
TABLE 16
DISTRIBUTION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION BY AGE AM) SEX
ActualNumber
i n Households
Interviewed
&
A
Projected
Number of
Individuals
-
Female
101%*
99%*
Male
Total
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 24
25 - 3 4
35 - 44
45 - 5 4
55 - 6 4
65
74
75 +
-
Total
2.388
*rounding e r r o r
36.535
100%
DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND GEOGRBPRIC AFtEA
The D a l l a s J e w i s h community i n c l u d e s about 3.300 c h i l d r e n under six y e a r s
of age. Of t h e s e p r e s c h o o l e r s . about 1,100 (33%) l i v e '- O t h e r D a l l a s / O t h e r
Suburbs. and 665 (20%) l i v e i n Plano/Carrollton.
The community a l s o i n c l u d e s
4.000 i n d i v i d u a l s over age 65. Among t h i s age group, about 2.600 (65%) l i v e i n
Near North D a l l a s . Half of t h e i n d i v i d u a l s in Other D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs a r e
between t h e ages of 25 and 44.
-
F i f t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t (53%) of D a l l a s c h i l d r e n under age 6 l i v e i n Plano/
C a r r o l l t o n and Other D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs.
Teenagers a r e more l i k e l y t o l i v e i n F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n t h a n any
other area
800 t e e n s between t h e ages of 13 and 17 l i v e t h e r e .
-
Two-thirds of s e n i o r c i t i z e n s over t h e age of 65 l i v e i n Near North D a l l a s .
- Pre-Bar/Bat
Mitzvah age c h i l d r e n , t h o s e aged 6 t o 12. a r e l a r g e l y d i s t r i b u t e d
between Near North D a l l a s (596 c h i l d r e n ) . F a r North Dallas/Richardson (880
c h i l d r e n ) . P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n (720 c h i l d r e n ) , and Other D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs
(580 c h i l d r e n ) . Only 276 6 t o 12 y e a r o l d s a r e p r o j e c t e d t o l i v e i n E a s t and
Northeast Dallas/West Garland.
TABLE 17
DISTRIBUTION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION BY AGE AM> AREA
Near North
Dallas
771
F a r North
Dallas/
Richardson
E. & N.E.
Dallas/
W. Garland
802
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18
24
25 - 3 4
35
44
54
45
55 - 6 4
74
65
75 +
Don1t know/refused
-
Total
*rounding e r r o r
--less
t h a n one-half
of 1%
300
Plano/
Carrollton
336
Other
Dallas/
Other
Suburbs
193
Total
2,402
Distribution of the Population by Age. Sex. and Geographic Area
Approximately 1,200 women between t h e ages of 25 and 3 4 l i v e i n O t h e r
D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs, compared t o 857 men; 668 women i n t h i s a g e group l i v e i n
P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n , compared t o 483 men; 767 women aged 25 t o 3 4 l i v e i n F a r North
Dallas/Richardson, compared t o 510 men. I n E a s t and N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West
Garland. which has t h e l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e persons. r a t i o s of men (718)
t o women (752) aged 25 t o 3 4 a r e much more e v e n l y matched.
TABLE 1 8
DISTRIBUTION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION BY AGE, SEX, AND AREA
MALES
Near North
Dallas
.--.
F a r North
Dallas/
Richardson
E. & N.E.
Dallas/
W. Garland
Planol
Carrollton
Other
Dallas/
Other
Suburbs
Total
1,194
363
3 96
151
173
111
4.684
3.922
2,316
2.844
4.759
100%
101%*
100%
101%*
100%
18.525
Under 6
12
6
13
17
24
18
25 - 34
35 - 44
54
45
55 - 6 4
65 - 7 4
75 +
Don't know/refused
-
Total
*rounding e r r o r
--less
t h a n one-half
o f 1%
101%*
TABLE 1 8 (continued)
DISTRIBUTION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION BY AGE, SEX. AND AREA
FEMAT Z S
Near North
Dallas
Far North
Dallas/
Richardson
407
403
5.235
4.035
100%
102%*
Actual Number i n
Households Interviewed
Projected Number
of Individuals
E. & N.E.
Dallas/
W . Garland
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 2 4
25 - 3 4
35 - 4 4
45 - 5 4
64
55
65 - 7 4
75 +
Don ' t know/refused
-
Total
*rounding error
-less
than one-half o f 1%
149
Plano/
Carrollton
161
Other
Dallas/
Other
Suburbs
82
Total
.
1 202
-
MAFUTAL STATUS
-
S i x t y - n i n e p e r c e n t ( 6 9 % ) of a l l a d u l t s 1 8 and o l d e r a r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d .
o n e - f i f t h ( 2 0 % ) have n e v e r b e e n m a r r i e d , 7% a r e c u r r e n t l y d i v o r c e d o r
s e p a r a t e d . and 4% a r e widowed.
-
The h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n of m a r r i e d a d u l t s i s found i n t h e 45 t o 5 4 a g e group
( 8 6 % ) . and t h e l o w e s t p r o p o r t i o n i s found among 1 8 t o 2 4 y e a r o l d s ( 1 0 % ) .
-
N i n e t y - p e r c e n t ( 9 0 % ) of 1 8 t o 2 4 y e a r o l d s have n e v e r b e e n m a r r i e d , compared
w i t h 33% of 25 t o 3 4 y e a r o l d s , 9% of r e s p o n d e n t s aged 35 t o 44, 1% of t h o s e
a g e d 4 5 t o 5 4 , 2% o f 5 5 t o 6 4 y e a r o l d s , a n d a b o u t 5 % o f t h o s e o v e r t h e a g e
of 6 5 .
TABLE 1 9
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS OF ADULTS 1 8 AND OLDER
.
18-24 25-34 35-44
45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
169
404
475
259
193
180
74
2,477
7.010
7,524
3,651
2,552
2,737
1,006
10%
90
0
0
63%
33
4
--
--
86%
1
10
3
0
79%
2
8
10
0
76%
4
7
13
0
62%
--
81%
9
10
0
100%
100%
100%
99%*
100%
100%
,
Projected
Number
Married
Never m a r r i e d
Divorced/separated
Widowed
Refused
Total
*rounding e r r o r
100%
--less
--
t h a n one-half
of 1%
5
0
33
0
Total
Projected
Number of
Individuals
Current Marital S t a t u s of A d u l t s 18 and Older by Age and S e x
-
-
About t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of men (74%) and t w o - t h i r d s
a r e c u r r e n t l y married.
of women (65%) o l d e r t h a n 18
F i f t y p e r c e n t (50%) of males and 47% of f e m a l e s younger than 35 y e a r s of age
have never been married.
Ten p e r c e n t (10%) e a c h of males and f e m a l e s i n t h e 35 t o 44 age group a r e
c u r r e n t l y d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d . An a d d i t i o n a l 17% of women aged 45 t o 54
a r e c u r r e n t l y d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d , compared w i t h o n l y 4% of men i n t h i s age
group.
The h i g h e s t c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e widowed a p p e a r s among women
aged 65 and o l d e r , about o n e - t h i r d of whom a r e widows. T h i s compares w i t h
o n l y 3% of men who a r e 65 o r o l d e r .
TABLE 20
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS OF ADULTS 18 AND OLDER BY AGE AND SEX
MALES
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total
78
176
221
127
87
1,192
2,972
3,609
1,884
1,120
1,356
455
12,588
13%
87
0
0
0
60%
35
5
0
0
82%
7
10
0
95%
2
4
0
0
89%
1
8
2
0
86%
6
7
2
0
87%
6
0
6
0
74%
20
6
1
100%
100%
99%*
101%*
100%
101%*
99%*
101%*
Married
Never married
~ivorced/separated
Widowed
Refused
Total
*rounding e r r o r
--less
--
t h a n one-half
of 1%
90
31
Projected
Number of
~ndividual-
81 0
-
9,249
2,493
757
75
11
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS OF ADULTS 1 8 AND OLDER BY AGE AND SEX
FEMALES
Married
Never m a r r i e d
~ivorced/separated
Widowed
Refused
Total
*rounding e r r o r
18-24 25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64 65-74
75+
T
otal
81
228
252
132
106
1,285
4,039
3,887
1,767
1,432
1,380
551
14,341
7%
93
0
0
1
65%
31
4
80%
10
10
0
72%
4
9
16
0
67%
2
7
24
0
41%
4
0
56
0
65%
21
7
7
--
77%
1
17
5
0
101%*
100%
100%
100%
101%*
100%
101%*
100%
--less
--
--
t h a n one-half
of 1%
90
43
Projected
Number of
Individuals
932
--
9,331
2,941
1,076
96 4
29
Current Harital S t a t u s o f Adults 18 and Older by Area
I n D a l l a s , 74% of J e w i s h a d u l t s l i v i n g i n F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n , 75%
of t h o s e i n P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n , and 74% l i v i n g i n O t h e r D a l l a s / O c h e r Suburbs a r e
married.
I n E a s t and N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West Garlana, noweve:.
.-r n a l f (49%)
a r e m a r r i e d , and i n Near North D a l l a s , s l i g h t l y more t h a n t w o - t h i r d s (69%) a r e
married. S i n g l e s , w i t h 37%, a r e more t h a n t w i c e a s l i k e l y t o l i v e i n E a s t and
N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West Garland a s i n e a c h of t h e o t h e r a r e a s . T h i s a r e a , which
h a s t h e l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e s , a l s o has t h e l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of d i vorced p e r s o n s , w i t h 9%. Widows, however, a r e more t h a n f o u r t i m e s a s l i k e l y t o
l i v e i n Near North D a l l a s t h a n i n F a r North ~ a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n , P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n ,
o r O t h e r D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs, and more t h a n t w i c e a s l i k e l y a s i n E a s t and
N o r t h e a s t Dallas/West Garland.
- Half of E a s t and Northeast/West Garland Jews a r e n o t c u r r e n t l y married.
Thirty-seven p e r c e n t (37%) have n e v e r been m a r r i e d , 9% a r e d i v o r c e d o r
s e p a r a t e d , and 4% a r e widowed.
-
Divorced and s e p a r a t e d persons a r e a l m o s t e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d throughout t h e
D a l l a s Jewish community.
-
Seventy-five p e r c e n t (75%) of Jews l i v i n g i n F a r North D a l l a s / R i c h a r d s o n ,
P l a n o / C a r r o l l t o n , and Other D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs, and 69% of t h o s e l i v i n g i n
Near North D a l l a s a r e c u r r e n t l y married.
I n e a c h of t h e s e a r e a s , l e s s t h a n
20% have never been married.
.
TABLE 21
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS OF ADULTS 1 8 AND OLDER BY AREA
Plano/
Carrollton
Other
Dallas/
Other
Suburbs
Total
249
221
140
1,760
100%
100%
100%
100%
F a r North
Dallas/
Richardson
E. & N.E.
Dallas/
W. Garland
611
53 9
100%
100%
Near North
Dallas
Married
Never m a r r i e d
Divorced/
separated
Widowed
Refused
Total
--less
t h a n one-half
of 1%
-
Age at F i r s t Uamage by Age and S m
&
As s e e n i n T a b l e 22. Dallas J e w i s h women aged 55 t o 64 were f i v e t i m e s a s
l i k e l y t o marry b e f o r e t h e y reached age 20 a s were women aged 25 t o 34: of t h e
98% of D a l l a s J e w i s h women aged 55 t o 64 who have been married. 36% were m a r r i e d
b e f o r e age 20 and a n o t h e r 45% m a r r i e d between t h e a g e s of 20 and 24. Of t h e 63%
of D a l l a s J e w i s h women aged 25 t o 3 4 who have been m a r r i e d , however. o n l y 7% had
married b e f o r e age 20. and 50% had m a r r i e d between t h e a g e s of 20 and 24. S i n c e
o n l y 63% of t h e 25 t o 34 age group a r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d , t h e t r u e p r o p o r t i o n of
women i n t h i s age group who were m a r r i e d b e f o r e a g e 24 i s 36%.
-
More t h a n one-third (36%) of women aged 55 t o 64, and one-quarter (24%) of
women aged 45 t o 54 were m a r r i e d b e f o r e t h e y reached a g e 20, compared t o o n l y
7% of m a r r i e d women aged 25 t o 34.
Eighty-one p e r c e n t (81%) of women aged 55 t o 64 were m a r r i e d b e f o r e t h e y were
24 y e a r s old. compared t o one-third of women aged 25 t o 34.
TABLE 22
AGE AT FIRST MARRIAGE BY AGE AND SEX
A c t u a l Number
i n Households
Interviewed
. - - o t a l Hales
T o t a l Females
65 1
P r o j e c t e d Less
Older Don't
Number of Than
Than Know/
I n d i v i d u a l s 20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50
Ref. T o t a l
.
10 120
---------7%
39
33
13
765
-less
t h a n one-half o f 1%
*rounding e r r o r
***Sample s i z e t o o s m a l l t o p r o j e c t t o e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n .
4
1
1
-
2
100%
DIVORCE
AM)
RKMRRIAGE
I n a l l , a p r o j e c t e d 1.833 J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s (6% of men and 7% of women)
i n D a l l a s a r e c u r r e n t l y divorced.
TABLE 23
MARRIAGE RATE
Number of Marriages
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Total
-
6***
113
204
125
86
151
1.925
3.338
1,853
1.111
1.278
426
96%
4
0
0
79%
16
5
0
71%
25
5
0
73%
22
5
0
74%
20
6
1
76%
18
6
0
--
100%
100%
101%*
100%
101%*
100%
100%
One
Two
Three o r more
Don't know/refused
Total
85
29
648
10.082
80%
16
4
FEMALES
Number of M a r r i a g e s
18-24 25-34 35-44
45-54
55-64 65-74 75+
T
otal
-
7***
86
156
228
130
103
88
42
754
2.776
3.500
1.747
1.382
1.350
531
11.372
100%
100%
100%
100%
One
Two
Four o r more
Don't know/refused
Total
*rounding e r r o r
-less t h a n one-half of 1%
99%*
101%*
99X*
-"
TABLE 24
DIVORCE RATE
MALES
Number of Times
Divorced
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
75+
T
otal
- 65-74
--
One
Two
Three o r more
Never
Total
FEMALES
Number of Times
Divorced
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
- 65-74
-75+
T
otal
11***
313
42
33
20**
16**
7***
129
1.191
648
372
301
107
2.932
100%
100%
100%
100%
One
Two
Three o r more
Never
Total
100%
*rounding e r r o r
**Small sample s i z e should b e viewed w i t h c a u t i o n by r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d
o n l y f o r purpose of showing important t r e n d .
- The group most l i k e l y t o b e p l a n n i n g t o have o r adopt a c h i l d w i t h i n t h e n e x t
t h r e e y e a r s i s comprised of women aged 25 t o 34. 45% of whom have p l a n s f o r
c h i l d r e n i n t h e immediate f u t u r e . Of t h e group aged 35 t o 44. 12% p l a n t o
have o r adopt a c h i l d w i t h i n t h e n e x t t h r e e y e a r s .
-
Almost h a l f o f women aged 25 t o 3 4 p l a n t o have a n o t h e r c h i l d w i t h i n t h e n e x t
t h r e e y e a r s t o complete t h e i r expected f a m i l y s i z e .
TABLE 25
PLANS FOR BEARING OR ADOPTING CHILDREN WITHIN NEXT THREE YEARS
AMONG WOMEN YOUNGER THAN 45
18-24
25-34
35-44
-
Total
94
219
2 47
560
W i l l have o r adopt c h i l d
i n next t h r e e years
11%
45%
12%
26%
W i l l n o t have o r adopt c h i l d
i n next t h r e e years
69
44
83
64
Don ' t know
20
11
6
10
100%
100%
101%*
100%
Total
*rounding e r r o r
.-.
I n t h e 1970 NJPS. t h e t y p i c a l American J e w i s h f a m i l y had 2.8 c h i l d r e n ,
w h i l e t h e t y p i c a l non-Jewish f a m i l y had 3.5 c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e same t i m e
p e r i o d . I n D a l l a s today. J e w i s h women p l a n t o have 2.2 c h i l d r e n . a number
c o n s i d e r e d by some f e r t i l i t y e x p e r t s t o a s s u r e r e p l a c e m e n t l e v e l . J e w i s h women
who have a l r e a d y had c h i l d r e n have had 2.3 c h i l d r e n .
-
More t h a n h a l f (52%) of t h e Dallas women aged 25 t o 3 4 s a y t h e y want one o r
two c h i l d r e n , compared t o 24% who s a y t h e y want t h r e e o r more.
More t h a n h a l f (56%) of t h e D a l l a s women aged 35 t o 44 s a y t h e y want o n e o r
two c h i l d r e n , compared t o 21% who s a y t h e y want t h r e e o r more.
TABLE 26
LIFETIME CHILDBEARING PLANS AMONG WOMEN YOUNGER THAN 45
Number of C h i l d r e n
Expected Over L i f e t i m e
18-24
25-34
35-44
Total
94
219
None
One
Two
Three o r more
Don't know
Refused
Total
*rounding e r r o r
--less
t h a n one-half
of 1%
2 47
560
Actual Family Size in Dallas Jevish Households
Among D a l l a s J e w i s h women who have g i v e n b i r t h t o c h i l d r e n . women aged 45
t o 64 - n e a r l y a l l of whom have completed t h e i r f a m i l i e s - have s u b s t a n t i a l l y
l a r g e r f a m i l i e s a t t h i s t i m e t h a n women aged 25 t o 44, many of whom a r e s t i l l
planning a d d i t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . Among women aged 25 t o 34. f o r example, t h o s e who
have given b i r t h t o c h i l d r e n have a n a v e r a g e of 1.7 c h i l d r e n p e r family; howe v e r , 45% of them a r e p l a n n i n g t o have o r adopt a n o t h e r c h i l d w i t h i n t h e n e x t
t h r e e years. Women aged 35 t o 44 a l r e a d y have an a v e r a g e of two c h i l d r e n p e r
f a m i l y ; 12% of t h e s e women a r e p l a n n i n g t o have o r adopt a n o t h e r c h i l d w i t h i n
t h e next t h r e e years.
Adoption in the Dallas Jevish Community
Six p e r c e n t (6%) of D a l l a s J e w i s h households i n c l u d e adopted c h i l d r e n .
More t h a n h a l f of t h o s e households have adopted two c h i l d r e n . r a t h e r than one
c h i l d o r t h r e e o r more c h i l d r e n . A t l e a s t 1.525 adopted c h i l d r e n l i v e i n D a l l a s
J e w i s h households.
Adoption i s most p r e v a l e n t among respondents who a r e c u r r e n t l y aged 45 t o
54. I n t h e 45 t o 5 4 age group, 86% have g i v e n b i r t h t o a t l e a s t one b i o l o g i c a l
c h i l d . and 13% have adopted a t l e a s t one c h i l d . I n t h e 35 t o 44 age group, 75%
have given b i r t h t o a t l e a s t one b i o l o g i c a l c h i l d , and 6% have adopted a t l e a s t
one c h i l d .
I n t h e 25 t o 3 4 age group, 32% have given b i r t h t o a t l e a s t one
b i o l o g i c a l c h i l d . and 1%have adopted a c h i l d . I n t h e 55 t o 64 age group, 84%
have given b i r t h t o a t l e a s t one b i o l o g i c a l c h i l d , and 9% have adopted a t l e a s t
one c h i l d . These f i g u r e s a r e based on v e r y s m a l l sample s i z e s .
.
.
Three p e r c e n t (3%) of households w i t h adopted c h i l d r e n a l s o i n c l u d e biologicel children.
TABLE 27
PROPORTION OF WOMEN WHO HAVE EVER GIVEN BIRTH OR WHO HAVE ADOPTED CHILDREN
Actual Number i n
Have given b i r t h
Have not given b i r t h
Don't know
Refused
Tota1
*rounding e r r o r
--less
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
T
otal
88
220
246
118
98
1,284
3.925
3,798
1,575
1,308
2%
98
0
32%
68
75%
25
0
86%
14
0
0
100%
100%
G
0
--
100%
100%
t h a n one-half
--
of 1%
83
39
892
1.291
504
13,685
84%
14
1
1
82%
16
2
0
86%
13
0
2
59%
40
100%
100%
101%*
--
--
99%*
-
.-.
PROPORTION OF WOMEN WHO HAVE EVER GIVEN BIRTH OR WHO HAVE ADOPTED CHILDREN
Number of Children Born
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
T
otal
-
Actual Number i n
I***
29
Average children per woman
2.0
80
185
107
83
1,263
2,859
1,349
1.101
1.7
2.0
2.8
2.9
100%
100%
69
34
559
1.061
431
8.093
2.4
2.2
2.3
One
Two
Three o r more
101%* 100%
Total
Number of Children Adopted
Actual Number i n
i
99%* 100%
101%*
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-,54 55-64 65-74 75+
Total
88
1.284
220
246
118
98
83
39
892
3,925
3,798
1.575
1.308
1,291
504
13,685
99%* 101%* 101%* 100%
100%
100%
One
Two
Three o r more
None
Refused
Total
101%*
*rounding e r r o r
100%
SECULAR EDUCATION
.
-
S e c u l a r e d u c a t i o n i s u n i v e r s a l f o r D a l l a s Jewish c h i l d r e n b y t h e t i m e t h e y
r e a c h 6 y e a r s of age. F o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t (45%) of younger c h i l d r e n , t h o s e under
6 y e a r s o l d , a t t e n d s c h o o l as w e l l . The p r o p o r t i o n of D a l l a s Jews e n r o l l e d i n
s c h o o l drops t o 70% i n t h e 18 t o 24 y e a r o l d group. a p r o p o r t i o n i n d i c a t i n g n o t
t h a t 30% of D a l l a s Jews do n o t a t t e n d c o l l e g e , b u t i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e post-age 22
group who have a l r e a d y completed c o l l e g e . Almost one i n f i v e (19%) D a l l a s Jews
c o n t i n u e s t o b e e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l i n t h e 25 t o 34 age group.
Among D a l l a s J e w i s h s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . 63% a r e i n p u b l i c s c h o o l s , 14% a t t e n d
J e w i s h day schools. 18% a t t e n d non-sectarian p r i v a t e schools. and 3% a r e i n
p r i v a t e C h r i s t i a n schools.
Over h a l f (57%) of J e w i s h p r e s c h o o l e r s a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l a r e i n Jewishsponsored programs. F i f t e e n p e r c e n t (15%) of pre-Bar/Bat Mitzvah aged c h i l d r e n
a r e i n J e w i s h day schools; however. t h a t p r o p o r t i o n drops t o 8% among h i g h
s c h o o l e r s aged 13 t o 17.
-
Almost h a l f of c h i l d r e n under six. and v i r t u a l l y a l l c h i l d r e n aged 6 t o
17. a t t e n d school.
TABLE 28
CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY AGE
A c t u a l Number
i n Households
Interviewed
Total
2.388
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 24
25 - 3 4
35 - 44
45 - 5 4
55 - 6 4
65 - 7 4
75 +
*rounding e r r o r
Projected
Number of
Individuals
36.535
Do
Attend School
Do Not
Attend School
3 2%
69
Total
101%*
TABLE 2 8 (continued)
CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY AGE
Total
A c t u a l Number
i n Households
Interviewed
Projected
Number of
Individuals
802
11.583
Public
School
63%
Private
Jewish
School
14
Type of School
Private
Private
C h r i s t i a n Non-Religious
School
School
3
18
Don't
Know/
Ref.
otal
- T2
100%
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 24
25
34
44
35
54
45
64
55
65 - 7 4
75 +
-
*rounding e r r o r
**Small sample s i z e should b e viewed w i t h c a u t i o n by r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d o n l y f o r purpose
of showing important t r e n d .
-
- .
-
Women aged 25 t o 5 4 a r e two t o t h r e e times more l i k e l y t o b e c u r r e n t l y
a t t e n d i n g s c h o o l t h a n a r e men of t h e same age.
TABLE 29
CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY AGE AND SEX
A c t u a l Number
i n Households
Interviewed
Males
Projected
Number of
Individuals
Do
Attend School
Do Not
Attend School
Total
Total
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 24
25 - 3 4
35 - 4 4
45 - 5 4
55 - 6 4
65 - 7 4
75 +
Males
Total
344
4.978
6 1%
15
4
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 24
64
120
95
65
955
1.714
1,309
1,000
4%
6 9%
85%
81%
54
14
7
0
1
3
2
1
*rounding e r r o r
Projected
Number of
Individuals
Public
School
Private
Jewish
School
Type of School
Private
Private
School
School
A c t u a l Number
i n Households
Interviewed
17
Don't
Know/
Ref.
-Total
2
99%"
CURRENT SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY AGE AND SEX
Females
A c t u a l Number
in Households
Interviewed
Projected
Number of
Individuals
Do
Attend School
Do Not
Attend School
Total
Tot a1
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
1 8 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 +
- .
Females
Total
Under 6
6 - 12
13 - 17
18 - 24
Actual Number
i n Households
Interviewed
Projected
Number of
Individuals
Public
School
Private
Jewish
School
Type of School
Private
Private
School
School
Don't
Know/
Ref.
-Total
263
3,539
64%
13
2
19
1
40
83
66
74
489
1,218
775
1,057
4%
5 8%
7 0%
85%
61
15
9
1
4
0
3
2
31
27
18
12
0
0
0
0
99%*
100%
100%
100%
100%
E d u c a t i o n a l Attainment of Dallas J d h A d u l t s
Among b o t h men and women o v e r age 75, two-thirds (66% each) r e p o r t t h a t a
high s c h o o l diploma was t h e h i g h e s t d e g r e e a t t a i n e d . Among men aged 35 t o 44,
19% have a h i g h s c h o o l diploma, 41% have bachelor's d e g r e e s , 19% have master's
degrees, and 20% have d o c t o r a l o r o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l degrees. Women aged 35 t o
44, w h i l e f a r more educated t h a n o l d e r women, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s l i k e l y t o
hold t h e h i g h e s t degrees t h a n t h e men i n t h e i r age group: 30% have h i g h s c h o o l
diplomas, 44% have bachelor's d e g r e e s , 22% have master's degrees, and 4% have
d o c t o r a l o r o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l degrees.
-
Women aged 35 t o 44 a r e t w i c e a s l i k e l y a s women aged 45 t o 54, and t h r e e
t i m e s a s l i k e l y a s women aged 55 t o 64 t o have completed m a s t e r ' s degrees.
Men aged 35 t o 44 a r e f i v e t i m e s a s l i k e l y a s women t h e same age t o have
completed d o c t o r a l o r p r o f e s s i o n a l d e g r e e s .
TABLE 30
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF ADULTS 25 AND OLDER BY AGE AND SEX
MALES
Highest Level A t t a i n e d
High s c h o o l diploma
A s s o c i a t e degree/
b a c h e l o r 1 s/R.N.
Master's degree
~octorate/professional
degree
None
Don't know
Refused
Total
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
75+
T
otal
- 65-74
-185
233
135
3,093
3,812
2,020
18%
19%
47
18
18
0
0
0
91
98
33
775
1,225
1,448
494
12,092
26%
27%
43%
66%
26%
41
19
35
12
51
10
35
10
14
10
41
15
20
1
24
2
9
3
0
1
10
0
2
0
10
0
0
0
17
1
-
100%
100%
-
--
0
0
101%* 100%
99%* 101%* 100%
--
F u l l - t i m e employment i s a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l among J e w i s h men aged 25 t o 54.
The unemployment r a t e i s h i g h e r among younger and o l d e r men.*
-
Employment i s n e a r l y u n i v e r s a l among D a l l a s J e w i s h men aged 25 t o 54; i t
d e c l i n e s r a p i d l y a f t e r age 65.
Only one-quarter of D a l l a s J e w i s h women aged 35 t o 44 d e f i n e t h e m s e l v e s a s
homemakers. Over h a l f a r e working f u l l - t i m e , and a n o t h e r o n e - f i f t h a r e
working part-time.
Two-thirds of D a l l a s J e w i s h women aged 25 t o 3 4 and 45 t o 5 4 a r e working
full-t h e .
TABLE 3 1
EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY AGE AND SEX
Actual Number i n
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74
78
175
220
127
87
1.231
2.956
3.599
1.884
1.120
1.345
99%* 100%
100%
101%*
Total
89
F u l l time
P a r t time
Retired
Homemaker
Disabled
Unemployed
Student
Other
Don't know
Refused
Total
*rounding e r r o r
101%* 100%
-less
than one-half
of 1%
*This i s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y p a r t i a l l y due t o s c h o o l i n g among t h e younger men and
t h e o n s e t of r e t i r e m e n t among t h e o l d e r men.
EMPLOYMENT STATUS BY AGE AND SEX
FEMALES
Actual Number i n
Projected Number
of Individuals
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total
91
228
252
132
106
1.325
4.039
3.887
1,767
1,432
101%*
101%*
100%
90
43
942
1.380
551
14.381
F u l l time
Part time
Retired
Homemaker
Disabled
Unemployed
Student
Other
Don't know
Refused
Total
.
-
.
*rounding error
100%
-less
99%*
than one-half
of 1%
99%*
101%*
101%*
Occupational Status
The o c c u p a t i o n a l p r o f i l e of D a l l a s J e w i s h men b y a g e shows r e l a t i v e l y
c o n s i s t e n t l e v e l s i n v a r i o u s o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p i n g s : a b o u t one-f i f t h of D a l l a s
J e w i s h men i n a l l a g e g r o u p s a r e i n e x e c u t i v e / m a n a g e r i a l p o s i t i o n s , f o r example, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f men aged 55 t o 64, 30% of whom a r e e x e c u t i v e s and
managers.
A p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - q u a r t e r t o o n e - t h i r d of D a l l a s J e w i s h men a r e i n
p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l t i e s . The p r o p o r t i o n of men i n s a l e s r i s e s s l i g h t l y from
men a g e d 55 t o 6 4 , 1 6 % , t o men a g e d 2 5 t o 3 4 , 24%.
A l a r g e number of D a l l a s J e w i s h women of a l l a g e s have p r o f e s s i o n a l
s p e c i a l t i e s , i n t h e 30% range. The p r o p o r t i o n of women i n e x e c u t i v e and
m a n a g e r i a l p o s i t i o n s d o u b l e s f r o m 11%of women aged 55 t o 64 t o 22% of women
aged 35 t o 44.
S a l e s a l m o s t c o n s i s t e n t l y i n v o l v e about one i n f i v e D a l l a s
women, w h i l e t h e p r o p o r t i o n i n s e r v i c e f a l l s from 11%of t h o s e aged 65 t o 74 t o
o n l y 3% o f t h o s e a g e d 2 5 t o 34.
-
-
Half of D a l l a s J e w i s h men a r e employed e i t h e r i n m a n a g e r i a l / e x e c u t i v e o r
professional specialties.
D a l l a s J e w i s h women a r e a s l i k e l y o r more l i k e l y t h a n D a l l a s J e w i s h men t o
have p r o f e s s i o n a l s p e c i a l t i e s . However, more p r o f e s s i o n a l J e w i s h women
c l u s t e r i n t h e lower s t a t u s , lower s a l a r i e d professions.
TABLE 32
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS BY AGE AND SEX
18-24
Execut ive/Manager
Professional specialty
Sales
Administrative
Service
Proprietor
Don't know
Refused
Total
"rounding e r r o r
75+. Total
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
168
210
125
85
88
1,240
2,780
3,284
1,868
1,081
1,317
435
23%
33
16
10
11
5
1
2
19%
24
24
14
8
5
2
6
20%
35
20
13
6
5
1
20%
23
19
15
5
21%
30
9
19
5
12
1
16%
24
25
1
6
30%
28
16
14
7
7
0
0
78
lOl%*
--less
102%* 101%*
t h a n one-half
11
--
99%"
of 1%
4
30
5
8
0
4
18
102%* 101%* 100%
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS BY AGE AND SEX
FEMALES
Actual Number i n
HouseholdsInterviewed
Projected Number
o f Individuals
~xecutive1Manager
Professional s p e c i a l t y
Sales
Administrative
Service
Proprietor
Don't know
Refused
Total
*rounding error
Total
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
-
92
216
241
129
104
87
42
1.349
3.716
3.621
1.664
1.397
1.326
531
13%
30
20
13
12
6
2
4
20%
27
23
15
3
6
5
22%
30
24
12
7
3
0
2
17%
29
16
16
6
5
0
11
11%
31
23
17
10
4
0
5
14%
34
17
12
11
6
0
6
11%
21
23
16
16
8
5
0
99%*
100%
100%
101%*
100%
100%
100%
--less
0
than one-half
of 1%
Type o f Employer
The g r e a t m a j o r i t y of D a l l a s Jews, e s p e c i a l l y t h e men, a r e employed by
p r i v a t e b u s i n e s s e s . One-quarter of men o v e r a g e 55 are employed i n f a m i l y
b u s i n e s s e s , a s a r e 11%t o 14% of women o v e r a g e 45. About one i n t e n women, b u t
f a r fewer men, work f o r n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
TABLE 33
TYPE OF EMPLOYER BY AGE AND SEX
MALES
Private business
on-profit o r g a n i z a t i o n
Government
Family b u s i n e s s
Other
Don1t know
Refused
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Total
77
175
219
127
87
89
30
804
1,222
2,956
3,590
1,884
1,120
1,345
435
12,552
75%
5
6
3
6
3
1
78%
4
4
6
8
0
0
77%
1
6
12
3
0
1
77%
3
10
8
2
0
0
66%
1
4
27
2
0
0
58%
6
6
25
5
0
0
60%
4
5
24
7
2
0
7 3%
3
6
13
5
--
.
T o t a1
FEMALES
of Individuals
Private business
Non-profit o r g a n i z a t i o n
Government
Family b u s i n e s s
Other
Don1t know
Refused
Total
18-24 25-34 35-44
75+
T
otal
- 45-54
- 55-64
- 65-74
-87
227
247
130
99
84
35
909
1,285
4,030
3,828
1,751
1,352
1,274
455
13,975
69%
8
2
1
4
16
0
68%
10
8
5
10
0
68%
11
8
7
7
59%
9
6
14
11
1
0
56%
13
10
11
9
1
0
67%
8
9
12
3
3
0
66%
10
7
4
7
4
2
65%
10
7
8
8
2
! e n ~ l o ~ % * 101%* 100%
100%
102%* 100%
100%
-
-0
--
.
-
*rounding e r r o r
--less
t h a n one-half
of 1%
~ Q Y E l E R TI11 PAST
YEAR
About one o u t of e v e r y t e n D a l l a s J e w i s h m a l e s aged 25 t o 54 h a s experi e n c e d some unemployment d u r i n g t h e p a s t y e a r , a s have even l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n s
o f women i n t h e same a g e groups.
While sample s i z e s a r e s m a l l , r e p o r t s i n d i c a t e
t h a t a b o u t h a l f (46%) of men aged 25 t o 34 who were unemployed s p e n t a month o r
l e s s l o o k i n g f o r work, o n e - f i f t h (22%) s p e n t one t o two months, and a n o t h e r onet h i r d (32%) s p e n t 9 t o 36 weeks.
TABLE 34
UNEMPLOYMENT I N PAST YEAR BY AGE AND SEX
HouseholdsInterviewed
18-24
25-34
35-44 45-54
55-64
77
175
219
128
1,222
2,956
3,590
1,913
1,120
11%
11%
4%
87
65-74
89
75+
30
805
1,345
435
12,581
3%
0%
Unemployed i n p a s t
year
22%
Not unemployed i n
past year
77
92
89
89
96
97
100
90
1
0
--
0
0
0
0
--
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20**
18**
19**
14***
5***
5***
0
81
281
224
408
246
44
46
0
1,249
52%
6
16
0
21
5
46%
22
32
0
0
0
7%
45
22
16
8
3
100%
100%
101%*
Don't
know/refused
Total
8%
10%
Number of Weeks Sought
Work Durine P a s t Y-
1 - 4 weeks
5 - 8 weeks
9
36 weeks
36 o r more weeks
-
Don't know
Refused
Total
101%*
*rounding e r r o r
- - l e s s t h a n one-half of 1%
**Small sample s i z e s h o u l d b e viewed w i t h c a u t i o n b y r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d o n l y
f o r purpose of showing i m p o r t a n t t r e n d .
UNEMPLOYMENT I N PAST YEAR BY AGE AND SEX
18-24
Total
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
87
227
247
130
99
84
1,285
4,030
3,828
1,751
Unemployed i n p a s t
year
20%
21%
15%
8%
Not unemployed i n
past year
78
79
86
92
95
99
98
86
2
--
0
0
0
0
0
--
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
14***
6***
1
I***
138
73
7
9
Don't
know/refused
Total
101%* 100%
1,352
5%
1,274
1%
34
908
455
13,975
2%
13%
99%"
Number of Weeks Sought
Work Durigp P a s t Ye=
19**
45
34
2 85
858
556
None
1 4 weeks
5 - 8 weeks
9
36 weeks
36 o r more weeks
Don't know
Refused
0%
72
21
0
0
7
0
10%
53
7
21
2
7
1
11%
23
22
32
5
6
1
100%
100%
-
Total
100%
120
1,926
100%
*rounding e r r o r
- - l e s s t h a n one-half of 1%
**Small sample s i z e s h o u l d b e viewed w i t h c a u t i o n b y r e a d e r ; d a t a p r e s e n t e d o n l y
f o r p u r p o s e of showing i m p o r t a n t t r e n d .
**Sample
s i z e too small t o project t o e n t i r e population.
-
HBbLTE COHDITIOWS AELl DISABILITIES
L i m i t i n g h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s l a s t i n g six months o r more w e r e e x p e r i e n c e d b y
9% of D a l l a s J e w i s h men and 7% of women. The p r o p o r t i o n s of d i s a b l e d were
r e l a t i v e l y low among younger i n d i v i d u a l s , e s c a l a t i n g s h a r p l y among p e r s o n s over
a g e 55.
TABLE 3 5
LIMITING HEALTH CONDITION LASTING SIX MONTHS OR MORE
Total
A c t u a l Number
i n Rouseholde
Interviewed
Projected
Number o f
Individuals
1,340
611
729
Rave L-
Y d
No
21,612
8%
92
--
100%
10,007
11,605
9%
7%
91
93
--
100%
100%
Sex
Male
Female
A c t u a l Number
i n Households
Interviewed
Total
97
Health Condition
Don't Know/
Refused
Total
--
Projected
Condition Reauires S u ~ e r v i s i o n
Number of
Don't Know/
I n d i v i d u a l s -Y
No
Refused
Total
1,693
25%
75
--
100%
sex
Male
Female
45
52
*rounding e r r o r
**Small sample s i z e should b e viewed w i t h c a u t i o n b y r e a d e r ; d a t a
p r e s e n t e d o n l y f o r p u r p o s e of showing i m p o r t a n t t r e n d .
HOUSEHOLD IBCOHE
The median income of a l l D a l l a s J e w i s h h o u s e h o l d s i s $49,050. By f a r t h e
l e a s t a f f l u e n t a r e a of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community, i n t e r m s of household i n come, is E a s t and N o r t h e a s t D a l l a s I W e s t G a r l a n d , where t h e median household
income i s $32,965.
This corresponds t o t h e l a r g e proportion, i n t h a t a r e a of
t h e Dallas m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a , of t h e l o w e s t income households; namely, s i n g l e s
$28,528, and s i n g l e p a r e n t s , $30,845.
The most a f f l u e n t h o u s e h o l d s a r e m a r r i e d
c o u p l e s w i t h c h i l d r e n l i v i n g a t home, who a v e r a g e $66,223 p e r year.
-
Married c o u p l e s w i t h c h i l d r e n a v e r a g e an a n n u a l income more t h a n d o u b l e t h a t
of s i n g l e p a r e n t s .
TABLE 36
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
A c t u a l Number
o f Respondents
Interyiewed
Total
Geographic Area
F a r North ~ a l l a s / ~ i c h a r d s o n
E. 6 N.E. D a l l a s /
West G a r l a n d
Plano/Carrollton
O t h e r D a l l a s / O t h e r Suburbs
Eousehold Compoa i t ion
Empty n e s t e r s
Young c o u p l e w/o c h i l d r e n
Single parent
Single person
Other
Projected
Number of
Households
977
15,260
347
277
4,563
2,808
153
1 21
79
2,442
2,030
3,417
297
199
88
32
254
107
4,464
2,901
1,583
353
4,258
1,701
Median
Income
-
One-third of young c o u p l e s who have n o t y e t had c h i l d r e n e a r n more t h a n
$60,000 p e r year.
-
F o r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t (43%) of c o u p l e s w i t h c h i l d r e n e a r n more t h a n $60,000 p e r
y e a r , i n c l u d i n g 25% who e a r n more t h a n $80,000 a n n u a l l y .
*
#
Z
o
d
C
+
N
O rN l o
N \ z
o
o
m
o
r
l
r
l
rl
OQ)
ucvcrm
CI
E
.d
Y
.d
m
f-or
mu.
CY
d
-
cow*-
aomlno
Cy
I
1
SECTION 8
A COMPARISON OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF GREATER DALLAS
RITE OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS
One of t h e most o f t e n a s k e d q u e s t i o n s about t h e demographic and r e l i g i o u s
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e Greater Dallas J e w i s h community i s how d o e s t h e communi t y compare w i t h o t h e r J e w i s h communities. Are D a l l a s Jews more m o b i l e t h a n
J e w s i n o t h e r communities? A r e t h e y f o l l o w i n g t r e n d s s e e n i n o t h e r m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s i n terms of m a r r i a g e r a t e s ? A r e t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l p r o f i l e s d i f f e r e n t ? How do t h e y compare i n terms of e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t ? These and o t h e r
areas a r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . New programs a r e sometimes
d e s i g n e d u s i n g models from o t h e r m e t r o p o l i t a n areas, and c o m p a r a t i v e d a t a c a n
a s s i s t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a d a p t a t i o n of o t h e r communities' e x p e r i e n c e s .
The t a b l e s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n a r e t a k e n from "A Compendium of
J e w i s h Demographic Studies," w r i t t e n b y Gary A. Tobin and J u l i e A, Lipsman f o r
t h e C e n t e r f o r Modern J e w i s h S t u d i e s a t B r a n d e i s U n i v e r s i t y . T h i s compendium
was t h e f i r s t a t t e m p t s i n c e t h e 1971 N a t i o n a l J e w i s h P o p u l a t i o n Study t o prov i d e a c o m p a r a t i v e l o o k a t J e w i s h communities, Many m a j o r American m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s a r e represented.
I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d from
d i f f e r e n t c i t i e s i n c l u d e s a r a n g e o f d a t e s from 1981 t o 1989; t h e r e f o r e ,
c o m p a r a b i l i t y may b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by t h e t i m e d i f f e r e n c e , r a t h e r
t h a n b y community d i f f e r e n c e s .
T e c h n i c a l f o o t n o t e s have b e e n removed t o make
t h e t a b l e s more r e a d a b l e . "NJPS" r e f e r s t o t h e N a t i o n a l J e w i s h P o p u l a t i o n
Study commissioned by t h e C o u n c i l o f J e w i s h F e d e r a t i o n s i n 1971. N e w n a t i o n a l
d a t a f o r 1990 may b e a v a i l a b l e i n a b o u t 1992.
-
AVERAGE E O U S E E ~SIZE
The average household s i z e i n t h e D a l l a s area. 2.4. i s middle range f o r
most J e w i s h communities. T h i s compares w i t h a low of 2.0 in Palm Beach. and a
h i g h of 2.9 i n MetroWest.
An average household s i z e of 2.4 i s a l s o found f o r
Phoenix. Richmond. Rochester. New York, and Providence. Baltimore, Kansas
City. Milwaukee, Worcester. and t h e Bay Area a l l have an average household
The average household s i z e i n Miami. Los Angeles. and Denver i s
s i z e of 2.5.
2.2 each, w h i l e Chicago. Nashville, and Minneapolis show an average household
Communities
s i z e of 2.6 each. Cleveland's average household s i z e i s 2.8.
w i t h l a r g e numbers of s i n g l e s o r e l d e r l y tend t o have lower average household
sizes.
TABLE 3 8
Members of
Jewish Households
DALLAS
2.4
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chic ago
Cleveland
Denver
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
Met roWes t
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
New Orleans
New York
Palm Beach
Phoenix
Providence
Richmond
Rochester
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Washington, D .C.
Worcester
NJPS
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.8
HOUSEBOLD SIZE
.
Household c o n f i g u r a t i o n s in t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community a r e a v e r a g e when
compared w i t h t h o s e of o t h e r communities, a l t h o u g h t h e a v e r a g e t e n d s t o w a r d
t h e h i g h s i d e f o r s i n g l e - p e r s o n households. Twenty-eight p e r c e n t (28%) of t h e
households i n D a l l a s have one p e r s o n i n them. T h i s compares t o 19% e a c h i n
Cleveland and MetroWest, 22% e a c h i n M i n n e a p o l i s , St. Louis, and t h e Bay Area,
29% i n Richmond, and 33% i n Los Angeles. The p r o p o r t i o n of two-person househ o l d s i n Dallas, 34%. i s s l i g h t l y l o w e r t h a n a v e r a g e when compared t o o t h e r
communities, which r a n g e from a low of 30% i n MetroWest, t o a h i g h of 64% i n
Palm Beach. The p r o p o r t i o n of t h r e e - and four-person h o u s e h o l d s i s a v e r a g e
f o r most J e w i s h communities. About 33% of Dallas J e w s r e s i d e i n t h r e e - o r
four-person households, compared t o 29% e a c h i n Denver and Richmond, 32% e a c h
i n B a l t i m o r e , N a s h v i l l e , and S t . Louis, and 36% in Washington, D.C.
The
h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n s of one- and two-person h o u s e h o l d s r e f l e c t l a t e r m a r r i a g e ,
h i g h e r r a t e s of d i v o r c e , and a growing number of widows and widowers. I t a l s o
r e f l e c t s a r e l a t i v e l y low b i r t h rate, compared t o t h e non-Jewish community.
TABLE 3 9
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Person
DALLAS
A t l a n t i c City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chicago
Cleveland
Denver
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
Met roWest
Minneapolis
Nashville
New O r l e a n s
Palm Beach
Providence
Richmond
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Washington, D
NJPS
% 2
Persons
% 3
Persons
% 4
Persons
% 5
Persons
% 6+
Persons
Home o w n e r s h i p i n D a l l a s , a l o n g w i t h Kansas C i t y and R o c h e s t e r , i s relat i v e l y h i g h among J e w i s h communities s t u d i e d ; 75% of D a l l a s r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y own t h e i r homes. T h i s compares t o 89% i n Palm Beach. 78% i n
Rochester. 75% i n Kansas C i t y , 74% each i n MetroWest and A t l a n t i c C i t y . 70%
e a c h i n St. P a u l and Washington. D.C.,
67% i n t h e Bay Area, 63% i n P h i l a d e l p h i a , and 62% i n M i a m i .
TABLE 40
% Owners
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Kansas C i t y
Met r o v e s t
Miami
New O r l e a n s
Palm Beach
Philadelphia
Rochester
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
% Renters
-
-
LENEtW OF RESIDENCE
The Jewish population of D a l l a s i s h i g h l y mobile. More t h a n f o u r of
e v e r y t e n respondents (43%) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y have l i v e d a t t h e i r c u r r e n t
a d d r e s s f o r t h r e e y e a r s o r l e s s . This compares w i t h 23% of A t l a n t i c C i t y
r e s i d e n t s , 26% of St. Louis r e s i d e n t s , and 28% of t h o s e i n Baltimore. I n
a d d i t i o n , D a l l a s (along w i t h Washington, D.C.) shows t h e second l o w e s t proport i o n of respondents who i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y have l i v e d a t t h e i r c u r r e n t a d d r e s s
f o r twenty o r more y e a r s , w i t h 11%each. T h i s r e f l e c t s t h e l a r g e in-migration
of non-Dallas r e s i d e n t s . B a l t i m o r e shows a p r o p o r t i o n of 14% i n d i c a t i n g
r e s i d e n c e of 20+ y e a r s a t t h e i r c u r r e n t address, and p r o p o r t i o n s i n o t h e r
communities i n c l u d e 17% i n Kansas C i t y , 23% i n A t l a n t i c C i t y , and 28% i n St.
Paul.
TABLE 41
DALLAS
1989
<3 yrs.
43
4-8 y r s .
26
9-19 y r s .
20
20+ yrsm
11
Atlantic City
1985
(1 y r .
3
1-3 y r s .
20
4-5 y r s .
9
6-10 y r s .
22
11-20 y r s .
23
20+ Y r s .
23
Baltimore
1985
<1y r .
3
1-3 y r s .
25
4-5 y r s .
13
6-10 y r s .
21
11-20 y r s .
23
20+ y r s .
14
Bay Area
1988
1-6 y r s .
51
Denver
1981
<1y r .
12
1-3 y r s . 4-5 y r s .
<-------54----->
6-10 y r s .
13
11-20 y r s .
<--------24-------
20+ y r s .
Kansas C i t y
1985
<1yr.
6
1-3 y r s .
21
4-5 y r s .
13
6-10 y r s .
20
11-20 y r s .
21
20+ y r s .
17
(1 y r .
1-3 y r s .
<-----------25-----------
4-5 y r s .
6-10 y r s .
11-20 y r s .
20+ y r s .
Milwaukee
1983
1 yr.
13
6-10 y r s .
-
New Orleans
1988
1-7 y r s .
30
Philadelphia
1983
<1 y r .
10
1-5 y r s .
27
6+ y r s .
63
i vr.
29
2-5 y r s .
42
6+ y r s .
29
Phoenix
1983
-
7-16 y r s .
31
2-5 y r s .
36
17+ y r s .
18
>
<------28----><-------46------
19
8-17 y r s .
39
>
18+ y r s .
32
11+ y r s .
32
>
S t . Louis
< 1 yr.
1982
6
1-3 yrs.
20
4-7 yrs.
24
8-12 yrs.
17
S t . Paul
<1 yr.
3
1-4 yrs.
27
5-9 yrs.
15
10-14 yrs.
12
1981
Washington, D . C .
1983
0-2 yrs.
32
3-5 yrs.
24
6-10 yrs.
15
13+ yrs.
33
15-19 yrs.
8
11-20 yrs.
18
20+ yrs.
11
20+ yrs.
28
S i x t e e n p e r c e n t (16%) o f r e s p o n d e n t s i n D a l l a s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y a r e
planning a move o u t of t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . T h i s p r o p o r t i o n i s h i g h compared t o t h e communities s t u d i e d . P r o p o r t i o n s in o t h e r communities range from
a low of 2% o f Palm Beach r e s p o n d e n t s t o a h i g h of 23% of Worcester respond e n t s who a n t i c i p a t e such a move. About 5% of respondents i n New Orleans,
M i a m i , Minneapolis, and St. Louis s a i d t h e y a r e p l a n n i n g a move from t h e i r
m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a , a s a r e 15%of Rochester respondents, and 20% of t h o s e i n
MetroWest. The p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t s p l a n n i n g a change of r e s i d e n c e
w i t h i n t h e D a l l a s m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n many o t h e r
communities s t u d i e d . D a l l a s shows a p r o p o r t i o n of 29% planning such a move,
compared t o 26% each i n Baltimore. Los Angeles, and Phoenix, 19% i n Washington, D.C.,
16% i n Chicago, 10% i n MetroWest, and 8% i n Palm Peach. Only 50%
of D a l l a s r e s p o n d e n t s s a y t h e y d e f i n i t e l y p l a n no move. Washington, D.C.,
w i t h 45%. i s t h e only o t h e r community t o show a l o w e r p r o p o r t i o n of respond e n t s n o t p l a n n i n g t o move. M o b i l i t y i n t h e D a l l a s a r e a should c o n t i n u e t o b e
quite high.
TABLE 42
MOVING PLANS
% Moving
Within
Metro Area
Atlantic City
Balt b o r e
Bay Area
Chic ago
Cleveland
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
MetroWest
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New Orleans
Palm Beach
Phoenix
Richmond
Rochester
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
P --
% Moving
Out o f
Metro Area
X
Don't Know
X No
Plans
t o Move
About 8% of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n w a s born i n a n o t h e r country, a
f a i r l y low p r o p o r t i o n among any of t h e major m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s studied. T h i s
compares w i t h 6% i n Richmond, 7% i n MetroWest, 11%each i n Kansas City,
Denver, and Milwaukee, 14% i n t h e Bay Area, 18% i n St. Paul, and 24% i n Los
Angeles. The f i g u r e n a t i o n a l l y i n 1971 was 23%. The 29% of D a l l a s r e s i d e n t s
who a r e l o c a l l y born i s below average among communities s t u d i e d , which range
from a low of o n l y 2% of Palm Beach r e s i d e n t s who a r e l o c a l l y born, t o a h i g h
of 87% i n Rochester. About 22% of Denver r e s i d e n t s a r e l o c a l l y born, a s a r e
50% each i n Baltimore, New Orleans, Providence, and St. Louis, 66% i n Cleveland, and 76% i n Worcester.
TABLE 43
PLACE OF BIRTH
%
L o c a l l y Born
DALLAS
1987
29
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chicago
Cleveland
Denver
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
Met roWest
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New Orleans
New York
Palm Beach
Providence
Richmond
Rochester
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Seattle
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
NJP S
*Born i n t h e U.S.,
but not local.
%
U.S. Born*
63
%
Foreign Born
8
JEWISH POPULATION BY SBX
D a l l a s and Washington, D.C. a r e t h e only communities f o r which d a t a a r e
a v a i l a b l e i n which males outnumber females. Fifty-one p e r c e n t (51%) of t h e
p o p u l a t i o n i n D a l l a s a r e males. I n most Jewish communities between 51% and
53% of t h e p o p u l a t i o n a r e women.
TABLE 44
JEW1SH POPULATION BY SEX
DALLAS
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Cleveland
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
Met roWest
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
New Orleans
Palm Beach
Richmond
Rochester
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
NJPS
1989
% Male
% Female
51
49
-
JEUISH POPULATION BP AGE
Twenty-three p e r c e n t (23%) of t h e p o p u l a t i o n of D a l l a s i s under 18 y e a r s
of age. T h i s compares w i t h 18% i n A t l a n t i c City, 21% i n Rochester. and 25% i n
MetroWest. F o r t y p e r c e n t (40%) of D a l l a s r e s i d e n t s a r e between t h e ages of 25
and 44. compared w i t h 33% each i n S e a t t l e and t h e Bay Area, 29% i n Worcester.
and 24% i n Rochester. D a l l a s f i n d s 18% of r e s i d e n t s between t h e ages of 45
and 64. T h i s compares w i t h 30% of Rochester r e s i d e n t s . 24% of r e s i d e n t s i n
New Orleans and t h e Bay Area. 22% of t h o s e i n MetroWest. and 19% i n Worcester.
TABLE 45
JEWISH POPULATION BY AGE
Atlantic City
1985
10
13-18
19-29
30-55
56-64
65+
8
12
26
11
19
0-1 8
23
19-29
30-55
56-64
-
Cleveland
1981
0-18
22
19-29
30-49
50-65
65+
14
33
20
14
Denver
1981
-0 -- 9 - -10-19
- - - 20-29
- -
Baltimore
1985
-
0-12
12
35
11
65+
18
Bay Area
1988
Chicago
1982
12
30-39
21
40-49
11
50-59
10
60-69
8
-13-18
- - - 19-30
- - - 31-44
45-54
13
55-64
9
65+
11
9
22
70+
7
Kansas C i t y
1985
Los Angeles
1979
Met roWest
1986
0-1 2
15
Miami
1982
0 - 9
10-19
20-29
30-39
a0-49
- 50-59
- 60-69
- 70+
-
Milwaukee
1983
9
10
11
15
8
27
11
7
10
18
26
JEWISH POPULATION BY AGE
Minneapolis
1981
New O r l e a n s
1988
Nashville
1982
New York
1981
Palm Beach
1987
Phoenix
1983
Richmond
1983
Rochester
1988
St
.
Louis
1982
S t . Paul
1981
Seattle
1979
Washington. D.C.
1983
0 - 9
10-19
20-29
30-39
48-49
50-59
60-69
- 11
15
18
21
15
9
8
Worcester
1987
NJPS
197 1
0 - 9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
12
20
14
11
13
12
9
U.S. Census
0 - 9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-64
14
17
18
14
10
11
5
1980
S t a n d a r d a g e r a n g e s f r o m t h e U.S. Census are: 0-9, 10-19. 20-29. 30-39.
40-49. 50-59. 60-64, r n d 65+. Age r a n g e s u s e d i n the d e m o g r a p h i c s t u d i e s
may v a r y 1-2 y e a r s , and new r a n g e s are i n d i c a t e d w n e r e t h e y d e v i a t e f r o m
t h e d e s i g n a t e d U.S. Census r a n g e s .
About 11% of t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n i s 6 5 and o l d e r , i n c l u d i n g 3%
who a r e 75 and o l d e r . Along w i t h MetroWest and New Orleans, t h i s i s t h e
l o w e s t p r o p o r t i o n of respondents i n t h i s age group among t h e communities
s t u d i e d . I t compares w i t h a h i g h of 58% i n Palm Beach, 22% i n Worcester. 18%
i n Baltimore, 17% each in Kansas C i t y and Rochester, and 14% each i n t h e Bay
Area, Cleveland, and Chicago. D a l l a s i s among t h e younger J e w i s h communities
i n t h e United S t a t e s .
TABLE 46
THE ELDERLY
% Over
Age 6 5
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chicago
Cleveland
Kansas C i t y
Met roues t
New Orleans
Palm Beach
Rochester
Seattle
Worcester
U.S. Census
D a l l a s i s about average i n t e r m s of t h e p r o p o r t i o n of m a r r i e d i n d i v i d u a l s
among communities studied. Sixty-nine p e r c e n t (69%) of t h e respondents a r e
married persons, compared t o 74% i n New Orleans, 67% each i n Milwaukee,
A t l a n t i c City. Rochester. and Richmond. 65% each i n Chicago and New York, and
63% i n Phoenix. The 20% of D a l l a s respondents who a r e s i n g l e i s s l i g h t l y
above average, and compares t o 7% i n Miami, 9% i n St. Louis, 14% each i n
Milwaukee, New Orleans, Richmond, and Worcester, 23% each i n Chicago, Denver,
and Rochester. and 27% i n Washington, D.C.
About 7% of D a l l a s Jews a r e
c u r r e n t l y divorced o r s e p a r a t e d , s i m i l a r t o most o t h e r J e w i s h communities.
Only 4% of D a l l a s r e s i d e n t s a r e widowed. s i m i l a r t o J e w i s h communities without
l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n s of e l d e r l y Jews, s u c h a s t h e Bay Area (7%). Denver (9x1, and
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. (7%).
TABLE 47
MARITAL STATUS OF THE JEWISH POPULATION
DALLAS
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chicago
Cleveland
Denver
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
MetroWest
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
New Orleans
New York
Palm Beach
Phoenix
Providence
Rochester
Richmond
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
U.S. Census
1989
%
Married
%
Single
%
Widowed
69
20
4
% Divorced/
Separated
7
The d a t a on D a l l a s Jews who a r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d , examined by age, show
t h a t D a l l a s i s s i m i l a r when compared t o o t h e r commuaities f o r which d a t a a r e
a v a i l a b l e . For example, t h e 10% of 1 8 t o 24 y e a r o l d s i n D a l l a s who a r e
c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d compares w i t h 2% of R o c h e s t e r respondents, 5% each i n Kansas
C i t y and Washington, D.C.,
9% e a c h i n A t l a n t i c C i t y and B a l t i m o r e , and 17% i n
N e w Orleans. For D a l l a s r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e 25 t o 3 4 age group, 63% i n d i c a t e d
t h a t t h e y a r e c u r r e n t l y married. T h i s compares w i t h o t h e r communities which
range from a low of 52% i n Kansas C i t y t o a h i g h of 76% i n N e w Orleans.
Eighty-one p e r c e n t (81%) of 35 t o 44 y e a r o l d s i n t h e D a l l a s J e w i s h community
a r e c u r r e n t l y married, compared t o 77% of J e w s i n t h e Bay Area, 80% each i n
81% i n Kansas C i t y , and 84%
A t l a n t i c C i t y , New Orleans, and Washington, D.C.,
each i n B a l t i m o r e and Rochester. Among D a l l a s J e w s i n t h e o l d e s t age group,
75 and o l d e r , 62% a r e c u r r e n t l y married. T h i s p r o p o r t i o n compares w i t h 50% of
New O r l e a n s respondents, 53% of t h o s e i n Worcester, 64% of Bay Area Jews, and
72% i n Palm Beach.
TABLE 48
CURRENTLY MARRIED BY AGE
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Kansas C i t y
MetroWes t
New Orleans
Palm Beach
Rochester
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
Age ranges i n Palm Beach:
< 3 5 , 35-49,
50-64,
65-74,
and 75+
SECULAR EDUCATION
%
--
The d a t a on s e c u l a r e d u c a t i o n a t t a i n m e n t show t h a t Dallas J e w s are h i g h l y
educated. The p r o p o r t i o n of Dallas r e s i d e n t s who a r e c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e s , 40%.
i s h i g h e s t among a l l c o m m u n i t i e s f o r which d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e . I t compares
w i t h 20% i n St. P a u l , 28% each i n M i n n e a p o l i s and N a s h v i l l e , 30% each i n
MetroWest and Worcester, and 33% i n Phoenix. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p r o p o r t i o n of
i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a n advanced d e g r e e i s i n t h e median range among communities
s t u d i e d . Twenty-five p e r c e n t (25%) of Dallas J e w s have advanced d e g r e e s ,
compared w i t h 18% e a c h i n St. L o u i s and Los Angeles, 20% i n New York, 26% e a c h
i n Chicago and Milwaukee, 30% e a c h i n R o c h e s t e r and Providence, 38% i n New
I n 1971, t h e NJPS showed 19% of J e w i s h
Orleans, and 48% i n Washington, D.C.
a d u l t s having e a r n e d an advanced degree.
TABLE 49
SECULAR EDUCATION
% High School
o r Less
DALLAS
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chicago
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
MetroWest
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
New O r l e a n s
New York
Palm Beach
Phoenix
Providence
Rochester
St. Louis
S t . Paul
Seattle
Washington, D.C.
Worcester
NJPS
U.S. Census
1987
(-34-
% Some
College
>
% College
Degree
40
% Advanced
Degree
25
-
--.
OCCUPATIONAL STA!CUS
D a l l a s . w i t h 29%. i s around t h e median among t h e c o m m u n i t i e s s t u d i e d i n
t e r m s of t h e p r o p o r t i o n of r e s i d e n t s i n p r o f e s s i o n a l p o s i t i o n s . It compares
w i t h 25% i n B a l t i m o r e . 27% e a c h i n St. P a u l and Worcester. 35% each i n MetroWest and t h e Bay Area, and 42% i n Palm Beach. The p r o p o r t i o n of e x e c u t i v e s /
managers i n D a l l a s . 25%. i s i n t h e low m i d d l e r a n g e o f communities s t u d i e d .
T h i s p r o p o r t i o n compares w i t h M i n n e a p o l i s a t 42%. A t l a n t i c City. a l s o 25%. S t .
Louis. 20%. and Los Angeles. 16%. A t o t a l of 41% of t h e Dallas p o p u l a t i o n i s
employed i n s a l e s , c l e r i c a l , and o t h e r p o s i t i o n s , compared w i t h 50% i n Los
Angeles. 43% i n M i a m i . 33% i n MetroWest. and 27% i n Washington. D.C.
TABLE 50
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS
DALLAS
C
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Chicago
Cleveland
Kansas C i t y
Los Angeles
Met roWest
Miami
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Nashville
Palm Beach
Phoenix
Providence
Richmond
Rochester
S t . Louis
S t . Paul
Seattle
Washington. D .C.
Worcester
NJPS
U.S. Census
1989
%
Professional
% Executives/
Managers
%
Sales
%
Clerical
%
Service
29
25
20
14
7
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INcmrE
=
-
Because of v a r i a n c e i n c o s t - o f - l i v i n g by m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a and changes i n
t h e c o s t - o f - l i v i n g o v e r t h e p a s t e i g h t y e a r s , comparisons by income must b e
viewed a s o n l y v e r y g e n e r a l benchmarks. r a t h e r t h a n a s a b s o l u t e comparisons.
Due t o t h e h i g h r a t e s of i n f l a t i o n i n t h e e a r l y 1980s. pre-1985 d a t a a r e
excluded. T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t (13%) of t h e D a l l a s households e a r n l e s s than
$20.000. compared w i t h 32% each i n A t l a n t i c C i t y and Palm Beach, 25% i n
Worcester. 21% i n Baltimore. 18% i n Kansas City, and 17% i n Rochester. A t t h e
same time. 32% of t h e D a l l a s households e a r n $60.000 o r more p e r year.
TABLE 51
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Atlantic City
Baltimore
Bay Area
Kansas C i t y
MetroWest
New Orleans
Palm Beach
Providence
Rochester
Worcester
NJPS
SECTION 9
MAJOR DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Jewish households now i n c l u d e f e w e r people, on average, t h a n t h e y d i d i n
t h e l a t e 1960s and e a r l y 1970s. Household s i z e s have d e c l i n e d from t h e 2.8
persons p e r household found i n t h e 1970 N a t i o n a l J e w i s h P o p u l a t i o n Study (NJPS).
D a l l a s , w i t h i t s 2.4 p e r s o n s p e r J e w i s h household, compares t o New York (1981).
Phoenix (1983)~ and Richmond (1983); i t h a s fewer persons p e r household t h a n
Cleveland (1981). Chicago (1982), Minneapolis (1981)~ and St. Louis (19821, b u t
more t h a n Denver (1981). Los Angeles (1979), and Miami (1982).
D a l l a s Jews tend t o b e a mobile group. I n a d d i t i o n , p a r t i a l l y because of
economic f a c t o r s and p a r t i a l l y because of D a l l a s ' s u n b e l t l o c a t i o n , t h e 1970s
and 1980s were a t i m e of g r e a t f l u x f o r D a l l a s Jewish r e s i d e n t s . Not o n l y has
t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n m u l t i p l i e d e x p o n e n t i a l l y , b u t persons a l r e a d y l i v i n g i n
D a l l a s have moved from one r e s i d e n c e t o a n o t h e r i n l a r g e numbers as w e l l .
-
With r e g a r d t o intracommunity r e l o c a t i o n plans, Plano d e s e r v e s s p e c i a l
a t t e n t i o n as t h e c h o i c e of many couples w i t h c h i l d r e n o r who a r e planning
f a m i l i e s . Respondents who s a y t h e y hope t o move t h e r e d i s p l a y e d a broad gamut
of economic p r o f i l e s . Almost one-quarter (23%) of households p l a n n i n g t o move
t o Plano had incomes of between $60,000 and $79,999 p e r year.
Another 11%had
incomes between $40,000 and $59,999 p e r y e a r , and about 6% had annual incomes
i n e x c e s s of $80,000. However, n o t a l l f a m i l i e s planning t o move t o Plano a r e
affluent.
Nine p e r c e n t (9%) had incomes between $20,000 and $39,999 p e r y e a r ,
and 7% had incomes of under $20,000 annually.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
The p r o p o r t i o n of v e r y young J e w i s h c h i l d r e n i n D a l l a s i s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e ,
e s p e c i a l l y when compared t o o t h e r s u n b e l t communities, which t e n d t o have e i t h e r
e x c e p t i o n a l l y l a r g e numbers of r e t i r e d persons o r e x c e p t i o n a l l y l a r g e numbers of
young and middle-aged s i n g l e s .
XARITAL STATUS
-
More t h a n any o t h e r s i n g l e s i g n p o s t of American Jewish l i f e ( w i t h t h e
p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of i n t e r m a r r i a g e ) , changes i n m a r i t a l s t a t u s r e v e a l profound
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of l i f e c y c l e norms i n t h e American J e w i s h community. I n t h e
N a t i o n a l Jewish P o p u l a t i o n Study of 1970 (NJPs), f o u r - f i f t h s of a d u l t Jews were
married; today, o n l y t w o - t h i r d s a r e married. I n 1970, o n l y 7% were s i n g l e ; i n
many Jewish communities today, about 20% a r e s i n g l e .
D a l l a s i s t y p i c a l o f t h e s e new t r e n d s . The Dallas J e w i s h community's
m a r i t a l s t a t u s f i g u r e s a l m o s t e x a c t l y r e f l e c t t h o s e o f t h e 1980 U n i t e d S t a t e s
Census.
-
-
About t w o - t h i r d s
Census)
.
One-fifth
Census) .
(69%) of D a l l a s Jews are m a r r i e d (compared t o 67% U.S.
(20%) of D a l l a s Jews have n e v e r been m a r r i e d (compared t o 19% U.S.
-
Seven p e r c e n t (7%) of D a l l a s Jews a r e c u r r e n t l y d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d (comp a r e d t o 6% U.S. C e n s u s ) .
-
Four p e r c e n t (4%) of D a l l a s Jews a r e widowed ( h a l f o f t h e 8% i n t h e U.S.
Census)
.
I n 1970, Jews a c h i e v e d " u n i v e r s a l marriage:" t h a t is, o v e r 95% m a r r i e d , by
t h e t i m e t h e y w e r e 3 5 y e a r s old. Today, i n many communities, t h e y do n o t
a c h i e v e " u n i v e r s a l marriage" u n t i l t h e y a r e 45 y e a r s old. A t t h e same t i m e ,
d i v o r c e r a t e s among Jews a r e c l i m b i n g , a d d i n g more i n d i v i d u a l s t o t h e " s i n g l e s
scene."
D a l l a s J e w r y f o l l o w s t h i s n a t i o n w i d e p a t t e r n i n many r e s p e c t s . R e l a t i v e l y
s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n s of D a l l a s Jews a r e m a r r i e d i n t h e i r t w e n t i e s . Even among
J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s aged 25 t o 34, o n e - t h i r d (33%) have n e v e r b e e n m a r r i e d .
Among D a l l a s J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s aged 3 5 t o 44, 81% a r e m a r r i e d , 9% have n e v e r
m a r r i e d , and 10% a r e d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d . U n i v e r s a l m a r r i a g e i s a c h i e v e d i n
t h e 45 t o 54 a g e group, where 99% have b e e n m a r r i e d : 86% a r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d ,
1%have n e v e r b e e n m a r r i e d , 10% a r e d i v o r c e d o r s e p a r a t e d , and 3% a r e widowed.
As D a l l a s J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l s age, p r o p o r t i o n s of t h o s e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d
d e c l i n e . Among p e r s o n s aged 5 5 t o 64, 79% a r e m a r r i e d , 8% a r e d i v o r c e d o r
s e p a r a t e d , and 10% a r e widowed. Among o l d e r Jews, r a t e s of d i v o r c e d e c l i n e
somewhat and r a t e s of t h e widowed rise.
The a g e a t which J e w i s h men and women marry i s of c o n c e r n t o t h e J e w i s h
community f o r t h r e e b a s i c r e a s o n s : F i r s t , most American Jews do n o t a f f i l i a t e
w i t h J e w i s h communal i n s t i t u t i o n s u n t i l t h e y have embarked on t h e m a r r i a g e and
f a m i l y f o r m a t i o n s t a g e s of t h e i r l i f e c y c l e . Second, i n t e r m a r r i a g e h a s b e e n
l i n k e d t o d e l a y e d m a r r i a g e i n t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t one i s more l i k e l y t o meet
non-Jewish p o t e n t i a l m a t e s i n work s i t u a t i o n s l a t e r i n l i f e . T h i r d , d e l a y e d
m a r r i a g e a l m o s t a l w a y s l e a d s t o d e l a y e d c h i l d b e a r i n g and p o s s i b l y t o s m a l l e r
f a m i l i e s a s well.
DIVORCE
AM)
RKWWUAGE
It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t Jews seem t o have a p r o p e n s i t y f o r r e m a r r i a g e , s o
t h a t a c u r r e n t d i v o r c e r a t e i s always a s l i c e i n t i m e , r a t h e r t h a n a t r u e
r e f l e c t i o n of how many J e w i s h households e x p e r i e n c e d i v o r c e o v e r a l i f e t i m e .
Among i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e P - - - p = J e w i s h community, 5,519 have b e e n d i v o r c e d a t
some t i m e . Thus, 20% of t n e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n h a s had t o d e a l w i t h t h e problems
of d i v o r c e a t some t i m e , a l t h o u g h o n l y o n e - t h i r d o f t h a t number a r e c u r r e n t l y
---.
---
divorced. To i l l u s t r a t e how one p a r t i c u l a r group i s a f f e c t e d , w e c a n look a t
women aged 35 t o 44:
-
3,887 women aged 35 t o 44 l i v e i n D a l l a s Jewish households;
3,500 of t h e s e women, 90%, have been married a t some p o i n t ;
-
3,100 of t h e s e women, 80%, a r e c u r r e n t l y married;
-
400 of t h e s e women,
-
2,309 of t h e s e women, 59%, a r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d and have n e v e r been
divorced;
-
661 of t h e s e women, 17%, a r e c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d , b u t were p r e v i o u s l y d i v o r c e d .
-
Although t h e c u r r e n t divorced r a t e of D a l l a s J e w i s h women aged 35 t o 44
i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y one o u t of t e n i s now d i v o r c e d , t h e ever-divorced r a t e
i n d i c a t e s t h a t almost one o u t of t h r e e i s o r h a s been d i v o r c e d a t some t i m e .
lo%, a r e
c u r r e n t l y divorced;
Thus, d i v o r c e i s a much more widespread phenomenon i n t h e J e w i s h community of
D a l l a s t h a n i t may appear a t f i r s t glance.
-
A s American J e w i s h women postpone m a r r i a g e i n t o t h e i r l a t e t w e n t i e s ,
t h i r t i e s , and sometimes even t h e i r f o r t i e s , c h i l d b e a r i n g p l a n s a r e postponed a s
well.
I n t h e p a s t , i t has been p o s s i b l e t o p r e d i c t a c c u r a t e l y t h e a c t u a l s i z e
of completed J e w i s h f a m i l i e s from t h e f e r t i l i t y a p e c t a t i o n s of t h e c o u p l e s
involved, due t o t h e s t r i k i n g r e l i a b i l i t y of J e w i s h c o u p l e s i n f a m i l y p l a n n i n g
techniques. Today, however, when p h y s i c a l o b s t a c l e s , such a s i n f e r t i l i t y o r
c a r e e r and p s y c h o l o g i c a l o b s t a c l e s may i n t e r v e n e , it i s n o t c l e a r t h a t p a r e n t a l
p r e d i c t i o n s of completed f a m i l y s i z e w i l l prove a s r e l i a b l e a s i n t h e p a s t .
The f e r t i l i t y r a t e of D a l l a s J e w i s h women who have completed t h e i r
f a m i l i e s , i s comparable t o e a r l i e r , more p r o l i f i c p a t t e r n s among American Jews.
Women aged 45 t o 54 who have borne c h i l d r e n have 2.8 c h i l d r e n - comparable t o
f e r t i l i t y r a t e s s e e n i n t h e N a t i o n a l Jewish P o p u l a t i o n Study i n 1970.
D a l l a s J e w i s h women, l i k e contemporary J e w i s h women a c r o s s t h e country, a r e
f a r l e s s l i k e l y t h a n were t h e i r mothers a t t h e same age and l i f e c y c l e s t a g e t o
s a y t h a t t h e y a r e f u l l - t i m e homemakers. Indeed, t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y of women
aged 25 t o 54 r e p o r t t h a t t h e y work f u l l - t i m e , w i t h a n o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l proport i o n working part-time.
L i k e o t h e r J e w i s h mothers a c r o s s t h e country, D a l l a s
J e w i s h mothers seldom r e l i n q u i s h work o u t s i d e t h e home c o m p l e t e l y even d u r i n g
t h e i r c h i l d r e a r i n g years.

Dallas TX 1988 - Demographic Profile Report

Transcription

Similar documents