Abstract
Jews are a small proportion of the overall population and local community surveys are inherently challenging to conduct. Until recently, primary sample random digit dialing (RDD) surveys have been the preferred approach. But the proliferation of cellphones and declining response rates make RDD extremely expensive. The result is that communities who use RDD end up relying on small and/or biased samples. To overcome these challenges, the authors have developed a multi-method approach. It relies on cross-survey synthesis of extant RDD survey data that yields, along with significant cost savings, a more comprehensive sample. The approach also utilizes a broad list-based sample that goes beyond local federation lists and includes multiple other organizations. To maximize response rates, surveys are fielded both by phone and email. Finally, to correct for sample bias, adjustments are made using census-like data on organizational memberships and enrollments. In a series of four local Jewish community studies, the use of multiple methods has produced results that can be cross-validated against known data about the local Jewish community and known information that describes the local community context. Responding to the challenges posed by local Jewish community studies requires being transparent about the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used, while being responsive to the questions posed by communal sponsors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The dataset is available from http://www.jewishdatabank.org/studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=2723.
The dataset is available from http://www.jewishdatabank.org/studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=3193.
The dataset is available from http://www.jewishdatabank.org/studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=3246.
Notably, many Jewish community studies have attempted to boost response rates via advertising. (See, for example, the promotional ad for the 2014 St. Louis Jewish Community Study, available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRZ4EVBgw8.) If advertisements were equally likely to reach all segments of the community, they might help to improve the efficiency of the survey without biasing results. Unfortunately, the advertisements are most likely to reach those people who are most engaged in Jewish life. When flyers or YouTube videos are circulated, they tend to reach people who are most likely to read a synagogue bulletin or Jewish newspaper, or to click on a link sent to them in an email by a Jewish organization. But these people are also most likely to participate in the survey when they are contacted to do so. The potential respondents for whom improved response rates are most important — those whose ties to Jewish organizations are looser or non-existent — are less likely to be exposed to the advertisements. It is therefore likely that survey results will be biased by over-representing those members of the community who are most involved and under-representing those whose connection to Jewish life is more tenuous.
We recognize that many organizations are rightfully concerned with the privacy of their constituents. We assure organizational leaders that the lists are used solely for the purposes of the research and will not be shared with anyone outside the research team. The list copies are destroyed as soon as they are no longer needed. For full details of our assurances to Jewish organizations, see our website: http://www.brandeis.edu/ssri/communitystudies/faqmembership.html.
To be clear, not everyone on a Jewish organization’s list is Jewish. We use the term “known Jews” to denote that Jews who appear on such lists are known to the organized Jewish community.
We use a stratified random sample. Details are available in the methodological appendix of the individual studies.
This figure is taken from the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/182051/san-francisco-metro-area-ranks-highest-lgbt-percentage.aspx.
It is notable that our Jewish community study (Boxer et al. 2015) found that 32% of Jewish adults in Seattle are JNR, while PRRI’s American Values Atlas indicates that 33% of adults in Seattle say they are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise do not adhere to any religion.
For example, suppose population estimates show ten thousand school-age children, with 10% enrolled in day school, yielding an estimate of one thousand children in day school. If JData records indicate there are five hundred children in day school, it could be that the 10% estimate is correct and that there are, in fact, five thousand children in the community, or, more likely, that there are ten thousand children in the community but the true enrollment rate is 5%.
Indeed, the study’s page on the Berman Jewish DataBank confirms that the estimate was “not unanimously accepted as accurate after its release.” http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/details.cfm?StudyID=335.
Curiously, the critics do not note that Hebrew Union College, the Reform movement’s seminary, also has campuses in New York and Los Angeles, where the proportions of intermarried families belonging to synagogues are estimated at 15% and 11%, respectively (Sheskin 2015). These differences may reflect differences between very large communities such as New York and Los Angeles and moderate-sized communities such as Cincinnati, greater diversity within the Jewish population in larger communities, or other factors. The key is that the differences can be explained when the communities are assessed holistically.
References
Armstrong, Sandra M.Z. 2012. A Jewish girl & a not-so-Jewish boy: A memoir from New Jersey to Hawaii. Honolulu: Sandra M.Z. Armstrong.
Aronson, Janet Krasner, Matthew Boxer, Matthew Brookner, Charles Kadushin, and Leonard Saxe. Forthcoming. The 2015 greater Boston Jewish community study. Waltham, Mass.: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Axelrod, Morris, Floyd J. Fowler, and Arnold Gurin. 1967. A community survey for long range planning. Boston: Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston.
Boxer, Matthew. 2013. Jewish identity on all frontiers: The effect of Jewish community size on Jewish identity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Boxer, Matthew, Janet Krasner Aronson, Joshua K. Davidson, and Ellie Aitan. 2013. The 2013 Greater Buffalo Jewish Community Study. Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Boxer, Matthew, Janet Krasner Aronson, Matthew A. Brown, and Leonard Saxe. 2015. The 2014 Greater Seattle Jewish Community Study. Waltham, Mass.: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Boxer, Matthew, Janet Krasner Aronson, Matthew A. Brookner, and Ashley Perry. 2016. The 2015 Jewish Community Study of Nashville and Middle Tennessee. Waltham, Mass: The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Christian, Leah, Michael Dimock, and Scott Keeter. 2009. Accurately locating where wireless respondents live requires more than a phone number. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/07/09/accurately-locating-where-wireless-respondents-live-requires-more-than-a-phone-number/.
Cohen, Steven M., Jacob B. Ukeles, and Ron Miller. 2012. Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011. New York: UJA-Federation of New York.
Cohen, Steven M., Jacob B. Ukeles, Ron Miller, David Dutwin, and Susan Sherr. 2015. 2014 St. Louis Jewish Community Study. St. Louis: Jewish Federation of St. Louis.
Curtin, Richard, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer. 2005. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69: 87–98.
Dutwin, David. 2016. Everything you need to consider when deciding to field a survey of Jews: Choices in survey methods and their consequences for quality. Contemporary Jewry, this volume.
Eisner, Jane, ed. 2013. Who are we now? Interpreting the Pew study on Jewish identity in America today. New York: The Jewish Daily Forward.
Fax, Julie Gruenbaum. July 25, 2012. Who knows who L.A.’s Jews are? The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Accessed online from http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/why_counting_counts_who_knows_who_las_jews_are_20120725.
Gendler, Carol. 1985. In Omaha, it’s hard to be a Jew. Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility 15:47–48.
Goldhaber Research Associates. 1995. Jewish Community Study of the Jewish population in Erie County. Buffalo, N.Y: Foundation for Jewish Philanthropies and Jewish Federation of Greater Buffalo.
Hadaway, C.Kirk, Penny Long Marler, and Mark Chaves. 1993. What the polls don’t show: A closer look at U.S. church attendance. American Sociological Review 58: 741–752.
Heilman, Uriel. 2011, July 12. “Is the era of national surveys of American Jews at an end?”Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Accessed online from http://www.jta.org/2011/07/12/life-religion/is-the-era-of-national-surveys-of-american-jews-at-an-end.
Himmelfarb, Harold S., Michael Loar, and Susan H. Mott. 1983. Sampling by ethnic surnames: The case of American Jews. Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 247–260.
Holzel, David. February 18, 2015. New portrait of D.C. Jewish community.Washington Jewish Week. Accessed online from http://washingtonjewishweek.com/19757/being-jewish-is-more-important-than-doing-jewish/featured-slider-post/.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Kennedy, Courtney, Kyley McGeeney, and Scott Keeter. 2016. The twilight of landline interviewing. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/2016/08/01/the-twilight-of-landline-interviewing/.
Lavrakas, Paul, Stephen Blumberg, Michael Battaglia, John Boyle, Michael Brick, Trent Buskirk, Charles DiSogra, David Dutwin, Mansour Fahimi, Howard Fienberg, Anna Fleeman, Thomas M. Guterbock, John Hall, Scott Keeter, Courtney Kennedy, Michael Link, Linda Piekarski, Charles D. Shuttles, Charlotte Steeh, Trevor Tompson, and Randall ZuWallack. 2010. New considerations for survey researchers when planning and conducting RDD telephone surveys in the U.S. with respondents reached via cell phone numbers. Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/2010AAPORCellPhoneTFReport.pdf.
McGinity, Keren R. 2009. Still Jewish: A history of women and intermarriage in America. New York and London: New York University Press.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2013. A portrait of Jewish Americans. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center. 2009. Magnet or sticky?: A state-by-state typology. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/03/11/magnet-or-sticky/.
Pew Research Center. 2015. Advancements in telephone survey sampling: Balancing efficiency and coverage using several new approaches. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/11/2015-11-18_telephone-sampling.pdf.
Phillips, Benjamin. 2007. Numbering the Jews: Evaluating and improving surveys of American Jews. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, departments of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and Sociology, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.
Phillips, Bruce A. 1984. Sampling strategies in Jewish Community Studies. In S.M. Cohen, J.S. Woocher, and B.A. Phillips, eds., Perspectives in Jewish Population Research (67–79).
Phillips, Bruce A., and Pini Herman. 2001. Greater Seattle Jewish Population Study, 2000. Los Angeles: Phillips & Herman Demographic Research.
Saxe, Leonard, Benjamin Phillips, Charles Kadushin, Graham Wright, and Daniel Parmer. 2006. The 2005 Boston Community Survey: Preliminary findings. Waltham, Mass.: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, Leonard, Theodore Sasson, and Janet Krasner Aronson. 2015. Pew’s portrait of American Jewry: A reassessment of the assimilation narrative. In American Jewish year book 2014, ed. Arnold Dashefsky, and Ira Sheskin, 71–81. Dordrecht: Springer.
Saxe, Leonard, Elizabeth Tighe, and Matthew Boxer. 2014. Measuring the size and characteristics of American Jewry: A new paradigm to understand an ancient people. In The social scientific Study of Jewry: Sources, approaches, debates, ed. Uzi Rebhun, 37–54. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, Jim, and Jeffrey Scheckner. 2001. Jewish population in the United States, 2000. In American Jewish Year Book 2001, ed. David Singer, and Lawrence Grossman, 253–280. New York: The American Jewish Committee.
Schwartz, Jim, and Jeffrey Scheckner. 2002. Jewish population in the United States, 2001. In American Jewish Year Book 2002, ed. David Singer, and Lawrence Grossman, 247–274. New York: The American Jewish Committee.
Sheskin, Ira M. 1998. A methodology for examining the changing size and spatial distribution of a Jewish population: A Miami case study.Shofar 17:97–116.
Sheskin, Ira M. 2015. Comparisons of Jewish Communities: A compendium of tables and bar charts. Retrieved from http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=3299.
Sheskin, Ira M. 2016. Good practices in local Jewish community studies. Contemporary Jewry, this volume.
Sheskin, Ira M., and Arnold Dashefsky. 2013. Jewish population in the United States, 2012. In American Jewish Year Book 2012, vol. 113, ed. Arnold Dashefsky, and Ira M. Sheskin, 201–277. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.
Sheskin, Ira M., and Arnold Dashefsky. 2015. Jewish population in the United States, 2014. In American Jewish year book 2014, vol. 115, ed. Arnold Dashefsky, and Ira M. Sheskin, 215–283. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.
Sheskin, Ira M., and Arnold Dashefsky. 2016. Jewish population in the United States, 2015. In American Jewish year book 2015, vol. 115, ed. Arnold Dashefsky, and Ira M. Sheskin, 163–260. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.
Skalland, Benjamin, and Meena Khare. 2013. Geographic inaccuracy of cell phone samples and the effect on telephone survey bias, variance, and cost. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1: 45–65.
Tao, Xian, Benjamin Skalland, David Yankey, Jenny Jeyarajah, Phil Smith, and Meena Khare. 2013. Geographic accuracy of cell phone RDD sample selected by area code versus wire center. In JSM Proceedings (pp. 4494–4508), Survey Research Methods Section. Alexandria, Va.: American Statistical Association.
Thompson, Jennifer A. 2014. Jewish on their own terms: How intermarried couples are changing American judaism. New Brunswick, N.J., and London: Rutgers University Press.
Tighe, Elizabeth, David Livert, Melissa Barnett, and Leonard Saxe. 2010. Cross-survey analysis to estimate low-incidence religious groups. Sociological Methods & Research 39: 56–82.
Tighe, Elizabeth, Leonard Saxe, Rachel Magidin de Kramer, and Daniel Parmer. 2013. American Jewish population estimates: 2012. Waltham, Mass: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Ukeles, Jacob B., Steven M. Cohen, and David Dutwin. 2014. Missing the missing Jews: Narrowing the focus of Jewish Community Studies. Retrieved from http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/missing-the-missing-jews-narrowing-the-focus-of-jewish-community-studies/.
Ukeles, Jacob B., Ron Miller, and Steven M. Cohen. December 8, 2006. Read Boston study on intermarriage with caution. New York: The Jewish Daily Forward. Accessed from http://forward.com/opinion/9608/read-boston-study-on-intermarriage-with-caution/.
Weissbach, Lee Shai. 2005. Jewish life in small-town America: A history. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Yacoubian Research. 2002. Census, demographic, and needs assessment. Nashville: Jewish Federation of Nashville.
Yacoubian Research. 2010. Demographic and needs assessment study. Portland, Ore.: Jewish Federation of Greater Portland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aronson, J.K., Boxer, M. & Saxe, L. ‘All Politics is Local’: Challenges in the Study of Local Jewish Communities. Cont Jewry 36, 361–380 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-016-9200-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-016-9200-7