Jews in the UK 2013 - NJCS Preliminary Findings.january 2014

8/13/2019 Jews in the UK 2013 - NJCS Preliminary Findings.january 2014

1/48

NATIONAL JEWISH

COMMUNITYSURVEY

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

Institute for Jewish Policy Research January 2014

jpr / report


2/48

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) is a London-based independent researchorganisation, consultancy and think-tank. It aims to advance the prospects of Jewishcommunities in Britain and across Europe by conduc ting research and developing policy inpartnership with those best placed to inuence Jewish life.

Authors

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

Dr Laura Staetsky is a Senior Research Fellow at JPR and Visiting Research Fellow in theDepartment of Sociology at the University of Cambridge. Her expertise spans the disciplinesof demography, applied statistics and economics, and her recent work has focused on thedemography of the developed world, with a par ticular interest in mortality and migration, andon Jewish and Israeli demography. A former researcher and analyst at the Central Bureauof Statistics in Israel and RAND Europe, she holds an MA in Demography from the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem and a PhD in Social Statistics from the University of Southampton,UK.

Dr Jonathan Boyd is Executive Director of JPR, and a specialist in the study ofcontemporary Jewry and education. His most recent publications include papers and reportson the 2011 UK Census, antisemitism and Jewish life in contemporary Europe, BritishJewish identity, and child poverty in the British Jewish community. He holds a doc torate ineducational philosophy and lifelong learning from the University of Nottingham, a BA andMA in modern Jewish history from University College London, and is a former JerusalemFellow at the Mandel Institute in Israel.

The National Jewish Community Survey was conducted by JPR, with data gatheringmanaged by Ipsos MORI. JPR is particularly indebted to Pears Foundation for its generousnancial support, and to Jewish Care ; UJIA ; Norwood ; Nightingale Hammerson ; theBoard of Deputies of British Jews ; the Movement for Reform Judaism ; LiberalJudaism ; Masorti Judaism ; and the Spanish and Portuguese Jews Congregation ,each of which helped to fund this study. In addition, we are grateful to the followingindividuals and foundations who also contributed generously to the research: The HaskelFoundation , The Family Foundations Trust , The Gavron Foundation , The AtkinFoundation , The Maurice Hatter Foundation and Sir Harry Djanogly .


3/48

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

Table of Contents

Survey highlights 3

1. Introduction 5A unique opportunity 5

Just scratching the surface 5

Acknowledgements 6

2. Jewish behaviour 7Jewish religious life and engagement 7

Kashrut (dietary laws) 7

Shabbat (the Sabbath) 7

Synagogue attendance 7

Festivals 8

Age and Jewish practice 9

3. Jewish beliefs 12A sense of Jewish identity 12

Age and Jewish beliefs 12

4. Jewish belonging 15Shifting identities 15

Retention and leakage 16

5. Exploring the Jewish religiosity age gradient 18

6. Intermarriage 19Prevalence 19

Prevalence by year of marriage 19

Intermarriage and Jewish identity 20

7. Jewish education 22Prevalence of Jewish school at tendance 22

General attitudes towards Jewish schools 22Parents views 24

Informal Jewish education 25


4/48

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

8. Charitable giving 28Amount given 28

Charitable priorities and the determinants of giving 28

9. Health and welfare 32State of health 32

Care preferences 33

Social isolation 34

Care provision 35Childrens welfare 37

10. First reections on the ndings 38Are young people becoming more religious? 38

What is happening to the traditional middle-ground? 38

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

Has the challenge of intermarriage been solved? 38

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

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

Jewish care homes, or care homes for Jews? 39

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

Appendix 1: Methodology 41Sampling strategy 41

Questionnaire and sample design 41

Measures of quality control 41How representative is the sample of the Jewish population? 41

Ipsos MORI panel 42

Methodological conclusion 42

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

Appendix 3: Project steering group and consultations 45Steering Group 45

The consultation process 45


5/48


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

Jewish behaviour and beliefs

57% of respondents attend a Friday night meal most weeks; half (49%)frequently light candles at home on Friday night; just under one in ve (18%)refrains from turning on lights on Shabbat (the Sabbath).

Respondents prioritise ethical and ethno-cultural aspects of Jewishness (e.g.Feeling part of the Jewish People) above religious belief and practice (e.g.Believing in God).

More respondents observe kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) inside their home (52%)than outside their home (36%).

In almost all aspects of Jewish religious behaviour, younger respondents aremore observant than older respondents.

Jewish belonging

A quarter (26%) of respondents describe themselves as being Traditional;a similar proportion (24%) as Secular/Cultural; and a minority (16%) asOrthodox or Haredi. 18% describe themselves as Reform/Progressive.

Compared with type of upbringing, the Traditional group has seen a net loss ofa third (34%), whereas the Secular/Cultural group has seen a net gain of 63%.

Most of those who switched away from Traditional moved to progressive orcultural positions; a minority moved to Orthodox or Haredi positions.

Overall, switching from the centre towards Orthodoxy was far outweighed byswitching from the centre towards secularism.

Intermarriage

In general, intermarriage is more common among those who married morerecently, but the steep rise in intermarriage which occurred prior to the 1990shas slowed, and the trend is now essentially at.

One in four (26%) respondents in a partnership has a non-Jewish partner.

Of those in marriages which are currently intact, 23% are intermarried; of thosewho cohabit but are not married, 61% have a non-Jewish partner.

10% of those raised Orthodox, 12% of those raised Traditional, and 39% ofthose raised Reform/Progressive, are intermarried.

62% of those who describe their current Jewish position as Secular/Cultural areintermarried.

76% of the in-married attend a Friday night meal most weeks, compared with18% of the intermarried.

Education

The rate of increase of Jewish school penetration among those who were notraised in Orthodox/Haredi homes has been slowing down, only marginallyincreasing in recent years.


6/48


51% of respondents aged in their twenties attended a Jewish school. Amongthose who were not raised in Orthodox/Haredi homes, the equivalentproportion is 38%.

Over three-quarters (77%) of respondents believe Jewish schools strengthenpupils Jewish identity; 61% believe that Jewish schools increase pupils chancesof Jewish in-marriage.

With the exception of Orthodox and Haredi parents, Jewish schools are mostpopular among middle-income families, but as household income rises above110,000 per annum, Jewish schools are increasingly less likely to be chosen.

Charitable giving 93% of respondents reported donating money to a charity (Jewish or otherwise)

in the year before the survey. Of these, 38% gave less than 100; 33% gavebetween 100 and 500; and 29% gave over 500.

A higher proportion (45%) of respondents prioritises non-Jewish charities than Jewish charities (37%).

In the year before the survey, 62% of those with personal incomes below20,000 gave less than 100 to charity; almost half (48%) of those with incomesabove 110,000 gave 2,000 or more. Those who give the largest donations tendto prioritise Jewish charities.

Health, care and welfare When asked about their future care preferences, 62% of respondents aged 65

and above express no particular preference for care in a Jewish environmentwith kosher facilities; by contrast, 97% of Orthodox respondents and 75% ofTraditional respondents in this age group would prefer a kosher care home.

However, 38% of all respondents aged 65 and above would prefer to be cared forin a Jewish environment with kosher facilities, and a further 32% would preferan environment with a Jewish ethos, but not necessarily with kosher facilities.

Over half (53%) of respondents aged in their nineties are limited a lot in theirdaily activities due to a health condition or disability.

Almost one in ve (18%) respondents looks after a close relative with long-termill-health or a disability. Of these, 58% do so for up to ve hours per week; 18%do so for more than 20 hours per week.

8% of respondents have a child with a learning and/or a physical disability.

15% of respondents with children of school age have a child with specialeducational needs (SEN); 62% of these have Cognition and learning dif culties(such as dyslexia). Half (51%) of children with SEN have an of cial SENstatement.


7/48


IntroductionHaving access to high quality data on the Jewishpopulation of the United Kingdom is a basic,but essential need of all Jewish organisations. Itenables them to better understand their marketin terms of Jewish practices and attitudes, andto assess empirically the effectiveness of theirprogrammes and services. Indeed, withoutsuch data, policy planning inevitably suffers Jewish community leaders and policy-makers

are compelled to make decisions on the basisof anecdote or supposition, which can result inpoorly-considered investments, and an inabilityto support Jewish life with adequate capacityor resource.

JPR exists to deliver such data, and is committedto helping community leaders and policy-makersutilise them to inform their thinking. It is essentialthat the nancial resources of the community areinvested as wisely as possible, and JPRs researchis consistently designed with this goal in mind.

Whilst research ndings are not meant to compel Jewish leaders to act in particular ways, they canhelp to ensure that leaders are fully appraised ofexisting trends and developments, which shouldconstitute a key input into strategic thinkingand planning. JPR achieves this by engaging inan ongoing process of accessing, creating andanalysing data, which it actively shares in order toenhance Jewish life.

A unique opportunitySeveral years prior to 2011, JPR foresaw aremarkable and unprecedented opportunityfor the UK Jewish community, because of thecensus planned for that year. The previous census,in 2001, was the rst to include a question onreligion, and it had generated the largest, mostdetailed and accurate dataset that had ever existedon Jews in Britain. JPR took full advantage of this,and published an extensive and ground-breakingreport on it. 1 As expected, the 2011 Census hasnot only provided a similarly valuable dataset inand of itself, but it has also generated data that canbe directly compared with 2001, thereby enablingresearchers to accurately track Jewish populationchange over time.

1 Graham, D., Schmool, M. and Waterman, S. (2007).Jews in Britain: a snapshot from the 2001 Census.London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

As a community, we are extremely fortunate tohave access to such data, given their exceptionalbreadth and depth. They give us highly detailedinformation about the geography of the Jewishpopulation and its age pro le, as well as health,education, economic and social data. Indeed,since the rst release of the 2011 Census datain December 2012, JPR has utilised them tosupport the planning work of over one hundred

Jewish charities and foundations in the UK,as well as to generate multiple reports forgeneral consumption.

However, even census data have their limitations.Whilst they tell us a great deal about the UK Jewish population, they are not designed toinvestigate the intricacies of British Jewish life.To achieve that, a speci c survey of Jews isrequired, and so, in order to add Jewish depthto the Census ndings, JPR actively promotedthe idea of running a national Jewish survey

alongside the 2011 Census. We knew thatthis, combined with the census data, wouldcreate a dataset of enormous value to Britains Jewish community.

The 2013 National Jewish Community Survey(NJCS) serves that purpose, and it was plannedmeticulously to generate gures that arecomplementary to census data, and can be usedalongside them. Together, these two sourcesconstitute the most comprehensive, reliable andup-to-date information pool about contemporary Jewish life in the UK that has ever existed, andprovide a unique resource to all those concernedwith supporting the future of the British Jewish community.

Just scratching the surfaceFrom the genesis of the project, JPR has workedin close cooperation with senior representatives ofmany of Britains major Jewish charities to ensurethat the data gathered relate directly to thoseorganisations main areas of concern. As a result,the survey covers several themes, notably Jewishpractice, belief and belonging, intermarriage, Jewish education, charitable giving, and care andwelfare. All of these topics, and many more, canbe investigated in depth using NJCS data, andprovide community organisations with a wealthof information to support their work. This rst

1


8/48


report contains our initial ndings, and it shouldprovide all Jewish organisations with some newdata and food for thought.

However, it only scratches the surface of what isnow available. Over the coming months and years,we expect to produce a series of considerably moredetailed follow-up reports on several of the issuesexamined in the survey, some of which will be forgeneral consumption, and others of which willbe based on bespoke analysis to meet different

organisations particular needs.The ndings are based on an online self-completion questionnaire obtained from a surveyof 3,736 Jewish households across the UnitedKingdom conducted in June and July 2013.Accounting for all the members of the householdssampled, a total of 9,895 people are included inthis survey. To be eligible, respondents had toself-identify as Jewish, live permanently in theUK, and be aged 16 or above. Published data inthis report have been weighted against 2011 UK

Census data and 2010 synagogue membershipdata. A detailed methodological summary can befound in Appendix 1.

AcknowledgementsWe are extremely grateful to the many individualsand organisations who provided us with theirbacking and help throughout the research process.In particular, we are indebted to Trevor Pearsand Amy Braier at Pears Foundation withouttheir extremely generous nancial supportand unerring dedication to this project, not tomention data-led policy making in general, thissurvey simply would not have been possible.We also want to thank the leadership of JewishCare, UJIA, Nightingale Hammerson andNorwood, who invested their time and money inthe endeavour, and, in so doing, ensured that westayed steadfastly focused on the major concernsof the community. The Board of Deputies ofBritish Jews similarly invested in the project, asdid several of the synagogue movements: Liberal Judaism, Masorti Judaism, the Movement forReform Judaism and the Spanish and PortugueseCongregation. We also received generous nancialsupport from the Haskel Foundation, the FamilyFoundations Trust, the Gavron Foundation, the

Atkin Foundation, the Maurice Hatter Foundationand Sir Harry Djanogly.

Many other individuals provided us with thebene t of their support, knowledge, adviceand expertise, including representatives ofthe Department for Communities and LocalGovernment, the All-Party Parliamentary GroupAgainst Antisemitism, the Community SecurityTrust, the Interlink Foundation, JW3, JewishGenetic Disorders UK, the Jewish Leadership

Council, the Jewish Volunteering Network, the Judith Trust, the Ministry of Justice, Prism, theSamuel Sebba Charitable Trust and the UnitedSynagogue. A full list of the Steering Groupmembers can be found in Appendix 3.

As ever, I want to acknowledge my co-authors Dr David Graham and Dr Laura Staetsky with whom I am privileged to work, and whochallenge, inspire and teach me every day. I amgrateful too for the advice and wise counsel ofProfessor Stephen H. Miller OBE, a trustee of JPR

and leading expert in the social scienti c studyof Jews in Britain, whose input at different stagesof the project has been invaluable. The rest of theprofessional team at JPR has also been continuallyengaged in supporting this project behind thescenes, and I am particularly indebted to JudithRussell, Richard Goldstein and Catriona Sinclairfor their valuable advice, assistance and guidance.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the extraordinaryvision, generosity and wisdom of the JPR Board,led by Chairman Harold Paisner, President LordHaskel, Vice-President Peter Levy OBE, Vice-Chairman Stephen Moss CBE and Treasurer BrianSmouha. When this project was in doubt due toinsuf cient funds, they insisted we undertakeit, even if doing so would result in the Institutehaving to cut back its capacity in the long-term.Recognising the signi cant research opportunitythat existed, they were determined to see theproject through, and went to great lengths toensure it took place. The Jewish community owesthem a huge debt of gratitude.

Dr Jonathan BoydExecutive Director, JPR


9/48


10/48


(Day of Atonement)) (Figure 3). Just over a quarter(28%) attend synagogue at least weekly, and justunder a quarter (24%) do not attend at all.

Unsurprisingly, synagogue attendance isassociated with type of af liation, among othervariables (such as gender, geography and so on).For example, over half (53%) of respondents whoself-identify as Orthodox2 attend synagogue

2 That is, respondents who self-de ned as: Orthodox(e.g. would not turn on light on Shabbat). Thisde nition of Orthodox is used throughout this report.

weekly, compared with a third (32%) of thosewho identify as Traditional and just one in ten(11%) of those who are Secular/Cultural Jews.Similarly, men are more likely to attend synagogueservices weekly or more often than women.

Festivals Historically, the most commonly observed Jewishpractice is the annual Pesach (Passover)seder ,and this survey found that a majority (71%) ofrespondents attend a seder meal every year (Figure4). While the survey did not investigate why thisparticular ritual is so commonly observed, the fact

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Refrain from turning onlights on Shabbat?

Travel onShabbat?

Candles lit in your homeon Friday night?

Attend a Friday nightmeal most weeks?

57%

43%

23%28%

49%

14%

66%

82%

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

Yes No Never NeverOccasionallyEveryFriday

Occasionally Frequently

%

Yes No

20% 18%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Not at allOnly on theHigh Holy Days

On High Holy Days andsome other festivals

About oncea month

Most Sabbathsor more often

%

28%

18% 17%

14%

24%

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


11/48


that it generally takes place in the home, involvesa family meal and is as much a cultural familialexperience as it is a religious one, almost certainlycontributes to its popularity.

Fasting on Yom Kippur is also a very commonlyobserved practice, with almost two out of three(63%) respondents doing so every year. Again, thesurvey data do not explain why, although in thisinstance, the weighty themes of repentance andindividual/collective improvement may resonatefor many, in addition to the fact that it alsoinvolves family coming together (for example, tobreak the fast).

Age and Jewish practice Jewish identity is not static, and cross-sectionalsurveys, such as NJCS, provide a means ofassessing generational change. One of the moststriking aspects of the NJCS data are the cleardifferences we observe between older and youngerrespondents in terms of religiosity. For example,concerning the separation of milk and meat utensilsat home, there is a clear age gradient between theyoungest and oldest respondents. Further, this goesin the opposite direction to the one commonlybelieved to be the case: over half (55%) of thoseaged under 40 separate milk and meat, slightly

more than those aged 40-64 (51%) who, in turn, aremore likely to do so than those aged 65 and above(47%) (Figure 5). A similar pattern is revealed interms of eating kosher meat at home and avoidingnon-kosher meat outside the home.

Further, we observe the same gradient withrespect to most aspects of Shabbat observance.For example, two out of three (65%) respondentsaged under 40 attend a weekly Friday night meal,compared with 57% of those aged 40-64, andless than half (45%) of those aged 65 and above(Figure 6). This pattern is repeated with respectto avoiding travel on Shabbat and refraining fromturning on lights on Shabbat. One exception tothis pattern relates to the lighting of candles onFriday nights (Shabbat eve), where age does notseem to be a factor.

Finally, observing Jewish festivals also revealsgreater engagement among the young than theold. Eight out of ten (79%) respondents agedunder 40 attend a Passover seder every year,compared with seven out of ten (70%) of 40-64year olds and six out of ten (61%) of those aged65 and above (Figure 7). Possible reasons forthis religiosity age gradient are explored later inthis report.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

NeverSome yearsMost yearsEvery year

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

%

* For attending a seder meal (N=3,736); for fasting on Yom Kippur percentages are based on the total numbers of cases excluding

those who do not fast for health reasons (10% of the total sample) (N=3,298).

71%

10% 11% 8%

63%

6% 8%

24%

Figure 4: Observance of festivals*


12/48


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Refrains from turning onlights on Shabbat

Currently never travelson Shabbat

Candles currently lit athome every Friday night

Attends a Friday nightmeal most weeks

65%

57%

45%49%

46%

26%

17%

8%

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

52%

%

28%

10%

18%

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Age 65 and aboveAge 40-64Age under 40

Never eat non-koshermeat outside own home

Only meat from a kosherbutcher bought for home

Milk and meat utensilsseparated at home

55%51%

47%

54%

43% 42%

34%

25%

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

47%

%


13/48


14/48


Jewish beliefs

A sense of Jewish identityBeyond religious practice, another means ofinvestigating respondents Jewishness is to exploretheir attitudes towards key Jewish religious,historical, national, cultural and ethical matters;in other words, their beliefs. Respondents wereasked how important, or otherwise, they felttwenty different items were to their own sense of

Jewish identity. The results can be seen in Figure8, which shows the proportion of respondentswho identi ed an item as being either Very orFairly important.

The most important beliefs are those associatedwith ethical and ethno-cultural themes. Forexample, the idea that Strong moral and ethicalbehaviour is important to being Jewish is nearuniversal (92%) and is the top item in this list.Three out of the top ve items are distinctlyethno-cultural: Remembering the Holocaust,

Feeling part of the Jewish People, andCombating antisemitism.

By contrast, religious beliefs are clearly ofsecondary importance to the respondents, withfour out of the bottom ve items being religiouslyoriented. Thus, only about half or fewerrespondents feel that Believing in God, Keepingkosher, Prayer and Studying Jewish religioustexts are important in terms of their own sense of Jewishness. The somewhat modest position of SupportingIsrael (11th out of 20) is also striking (Figure8). Some might nd this surprising given thecentrality of Israel in much of Jewish privateand public discourse and ndings from previousresearch.3 That said, a considerable majority

3 JPRs 2010 survey of the attitudes of Jews in Britaintowards Israel did not invite respondents to situatethe importance they gave to supporting Israel inthe wider context of other expressions of Jewishidentity. However, while not directly comparablewith the nding here, 82% maintained that Israelwas a Central or an Important part of their Jewish identity in that study, rather higher than the69% suggested by the NJCS data. See: Graham, D.and Boyd, J. (2010). Committed, concerned andconciliatory: The attitudes of Jews in Britain towardsIsrael. Initial ndings from the 2010 Israel Survey.London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

(69%) does consider Israel to be important to its Jewish identity.

Marrying another Jew is also of relatively lowimportance (13th out of 20) to respondents.However, it should also be noted that manyrespondents (46%) regarded this as Veryimportant; indeed, measured by this criteria

alone, it is the sixth most important item.Age and Jewish beliefsA brief examination of the relationshipbetween generational differences in attitude(based on Very important responses only)again reveals some notable differences by age.Indeed, on a majority of items (14 out of the20), clear generational differences in attitudeare evident. For example, older respondents aremore inclined to feel that Supporting Israelis a very important aspect of their personal

Jewish identity than younger respondents(Figure 9).4 Older respondents are also morelikely to feel that Combating antisemitismand Volunteering to support charity are moreimportant than they are for younger respondents(not shown graphically). On the other hand,younger respondents are more likely than olderrespondents to feel that Sharing Jewish festivalswith my family and Keeping kosher areVery important.

In general, it was observed that for itemsrelating to ethnocentric and ethical aspects of Jewish identity (e.g. Combating antisemitism,Remembering the Holocaust, and Donatingfunds to charity), older respondents aremore inclined to rate them as very importantthan younger respondents. By contrast, foritems related to religious practice, youngerrespondents are more inclined to rate them asVery important than older respondents.

Finally, six items exhibit no clear generationaldifferences in terms of sense of importance toones Jewish identity, suggesting there is some

4 Note, however, that this relationship was not evidentin JPRs 2010 Israel Survey data (ibid.).

3


15/48


inter-generational consensus on these matters. 5 These are more disparate than the two previoussets, but include Belief in God, Marryinganother Jew and Jewish culture (music, art,etc.) (Figure 9). It is not obvious why these itemsdo not discriminate between the generations,although there is no inherent reason why any

5 These items were: Marrying another Jew; Jewishculture (Jewish music, literature, art); Having anethnic identity; Having a religious identity; Workinghard and being successful; and Believing in God.

of the twenty items should do so. Interestingly,although Belief in God is an overtly religiousitem, it is not necessarily related to Jewishpractice, which may explain why, at least for thisitem, an age relationship is not evident. Possiblereasons for this religiosity age gradient areexplored later in this report.

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

Fairly importantVery important

Studying Jewish religious texts

Socialising in predominantly Jewish circles

Prayer

Keeping kosher

Believing in God

Observing at least some aspects of the Sabbath

Working hard and being successful

Marrying another Jew

Having a religious identity

Supporting Israel

Volunteering to support charity

Jewish culture (Jewish music, literature, art)

Donating funds to charity

Having an ethnic identity

Sharing Jewish festivals with my family

Supporting social justice causes

Combating antisemitism

Feeling part of the Jewish people

Remembering the Holocaust

Strong moral and ethical behaviour

55%

40% 41%

28%

27%

38%

54%

31%

25%

41%

32%

36%

61%

41%

45%

29%

26%

42%

30%

22%

30%

19%

35%

30%

27%

25%

17%

35%

32%

21%

28%

25%

20%

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

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

14%

27%

46%

38%

39%

60%

67%


16/48


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

age 65 and aboveage 40-64Age under 40

J e w

i s h c u l t u

r e

( J e w i s h

m u s i

c , a r t

) M a

r r y i n g

a n o

t h e r J

e w B e

l i e v i n g

i n G o

d

S h a r i

n g J e w i s

h

f e s t i v

a l s w i t h

m y f

a m i l y

K e e p

i n g k o s h e

r

S u p p o r t

i n g s o c i a

l

j u s t i c e

c a u s e

s

S u p p

o r t i n g

I s r a e l

32%

41%

46%

36%

39%

26% 27% 25%

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

47%

% 28%10%

18%

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

30%28%

25%

61%

53%

45%

50%

43% 44%


17/48


Jewish belonging

Shifting identities Jewish identity is also concerned with af liation,not only in the formal sense of synagoguemembership, but in terms of general alignmentwith one particular form of Judaism or another,or where one feels one belongs within the Jewishcommunity. Historically, social researchersin Britain have focused on a set of categories

relating to religious lifestyle which, throughself-classi cation, tend to discriminate betweenrespondents more meaningfully than synagoguemembership alone.6

NJCS found that just over a quarter (26%) ofrespondents currently consider themselves tobe Traditional, almost as many who considerthemselves to be Secular/Cultural (24%).A minority (16%) described themselves asOrthodox or Haredi 7 (Figure 10).

The survey also asked respondents to describetheir upbringing using the same categories ofself-identi cation. This provides another measureof change, although unlike the generationalchange examined above, it is used as a proxy formeasuring change over time.8

6 Miller S.M. (1998). The Structure and Determinantsof Jewish Identity in the United Kingdom in Krausz,E. and Tulea, G. (eds.) Jewish Survival: the identity problem at the close of the twentieth century. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, chapter 14. p.3;Schmool, M. and Miller, S, (1994). Women in the Jewish community: Survey Report. London: The DaCosta Print and Finishing Company.

7 The size of the Haredi (strictly Orthodox, Hasidic)group in the sample is not fully re ected in the currentpractice gures. This is because the term Haredi isnot necessarily used by all those who might otherwisebe considered Haredi by others. Another indicator inthe sample is membership of the Union of OrthodoxHebrew Congregations (Union), a Haredi synagogalorganisation. Whilst some respondents describethemselves as Haredi and belong to the Union, not alldo, and others are members of the Union but do notuse the term Haredi to describe their Jewish practice.Taking such differences into account, we nd that 13%of the sample can be considered Haredi.

8 Strictly speaking, this type of change is preferablymeasured by either running cross-sectional surveysover two or more time periods, or a longitudinal studywhich tracks the same group of individuals over time.Longitudinal studies are very expensive to run, and

Examination of these data reveals a considerableamount of dynamism or switching. For example,whilst a quarter (26%) of the sample is currentlyTraditional, two out of ve (40%) said they wereraised that way, indicating considerable movementaway from Traditional (Figure 10). The net lossamounts to over a third (34%) of the Traditionalby upbringing group (Table 1). To some extent,

this is the continuation of a pre-existing trend: JPRdata from over a decade ago showed that while37% of respondents were currently Traditional(in 2001/2002), over half (53%) said they had beenbrought up that way. 9

In contrast to the Traditional group, the categorywhich has gained the most newcomers in thepresent survey is Secular/Cultural: the proportionthat is currently Secular/Cultural (a quarter(24%) of the sample) represents an increase of wellover half (63%) relative to the proportion with a

Secular/Cultural upbringing (Table 1).

The loss of one in three formerly Traditionaladherents has broader signi cance than the

cross-sectional surveys need to use comparable surveymethodologies and question wording.

9 The data are from two JPR surveys, one in Londonand the South-east and one in Leeds (N=4,474). Forthe published reports on these surveys, see: Becher,H., Waterman, S., Kosmin, B. and Thomson K. (2002).A portrait of Jews in London and the South-east: acommunity study. London: Institute for Jewish PolicyResearch; and Waterman, S. (2003). The Jews of Leedsin 2001: Portrait of a community. London: Institutefor Jewish Policy Research.

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

Self-dened Jewishidentity

Percentage changefrom upbringing to

current position

Secular/Cultural +63%

Just Jewish +4%

Reform/Progressive +30%

Traditional -34%Orthodox +12%

Haredi (strictly Orthodox) +38%

4


18/48


withering of the formerly dominant category. Inabsolute terms, its loss is equivalent to 15% of theentire sample, but perhaps of greater signi cance,Traditional is the only category exhibiting anykind of upbringing-to-current decline. In otherwords, this switch away from Traditional issuggestive of a shakeout of the middle groundwithin the British Jewish community, since thecategory Traditional has customarily been seen asthe placeholder for centrist or middle-of-the-roadOrthodox Judaism. 10

Retention and leakage Examining this further, it is important to considernot only where individuals have switchedfrom, but also where they are switching to. Nogroup retained 100% of its upbringing cohort;the highest level of retention was among theHaredi group at 76%. Thus all groups haveeach experienced net leakage of adherents toother strands. For example, 47% of those raisedTraditional switched away; some (13%) moved tothe religious right (Orthodox or Haredi), but themajority (33%) moved in the opposite directionto more progressive or cultural positions (Figure

10 It is arguable that a similar trend is occurring in theUnited States. See for example: Lugo, L, Cooperman,A., et. al. (2013). A Portrait of Jewish Americans.Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

11). A similar picture is painted by those raisedOrthodoxof those who switch away, a minoritymoved to the right in religious terms, but mostmoved left.

Reform/Progressive also exhibits this patternof retention and leakage. Just over half (53%)of respondents who were raised Reform/Progressive are still Reform/Progressive today.However, as with Traditional, 47% have movedaway from this category; some (10%) switchedto the right (mainly to Traditional), but overa third (37%) moved left to more secular andcultural positions.

The main bene ciary of all this switching, in bothabsolute and relative terms, has been Secular/Cultural. It has also maintained a high level ofretention 11 and gained adherents from every typeof denomination.

11 Since the survey was only eligible to people whocurrently de ne themselves as Jewish, those who wereraised Jewish (by whichever denomination) but whohave subsequently left Judaism altogether, cannot beaccounted for in this analysis. Thus, the only positionfor Secular/Cultural Jews to switch to other thanright in this categorisation of Jewish identity is tonot identify as Jewish at all. Such a movement is notcaptured in this survey due to the considerable barriersto sampling.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CurrentUpbringing

Haredi (strictly Orthodox)OrthodoxTraditionalReform/ProgressiveJust JewishSecular/Cultural

15%

10%

24%

40%

26%

12%

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

%

10%

15%

18%

12%

3% 4%


19/48


Overall, although there was some movement fromthe centre towards Orthodoxy, the majority of themovement has been to the left, with substantialshifts away from the centre and towards more

liberal and secular expressions of Jewish identityin Britain. This is what we are describing as theshakeout of the middle ground.

0 20 40 60 80

Secular/CulturalJust Jewish/Other

Reform/ProgressiveTraditional

OrthodoxHaredi (strictly Orthodox)










7%

17%

10%

1%

52%6%

8%

12%53%

12%

11%

12%

10%

>1%2%

2%

25%

7%

5%

53%

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

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

U p

b r i n g

i n g

O r t

h o

d o x

N =

3 5 7

Current Jewish practice

U p

b r i n g

i n g

S e c u

l a r /

C u

l t u r a

l

N =

4 3 1

U p

b r i n g

i n g

R e f o r m

/ P r o g r e s s

i v e

N =

6 1 5

U p

b r i n g

i n g

T r a d

i t i o n a l

N =

1 , 6 0 9

10%4%

11%67%


20/48


5 Exploring the Jewishreligiosity age gradientThe observed religiosity age gradient in thissurveyi.e. the greater prevalence of various Jewish practices and behaviours among youngerrespondents than older respondentsissigni cant, not least because it runs counter toa commonly accepted narrative that young Jewsin Britain are less religiously engaged than older Jews. While this certainly warrants further study,

we can proffer a potential hypothesis at this stageabout why this is being seen in these data, andwhy it is not something that has been identi ed inprevious studies.

At least part of the explanation may lie in thesigni cant and well documented demographicgrowth (i.e. births outnumbering deaths) amongHaredi and Orthodox Jews in Britain sincethe early 1990s.12 These groups have relativelylarge numbers of children, and therefore exhibitdisproportionately young age pro les: this is

re ected in Figure 12, which shows that overhalf (51%) of Orthodox and 63% of Haredirespondents are under 40 years old, compared withabout a third among other strands. In addition,Orthodox and Haredi respondents also make up

12 See: Graham, D. (2013). 2011 Census Result (Englandand Wales): A Tale of Two Jewish Populations.London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research; Vulkan,D. and Graham, D. (2008). Population Trends amongBritains Strictly Orthodox Jews. Report of theCommunity Policy Research Group. London: Boardof Deputies of British Jews.

a disproportionately large part of the youngercohorts in this survey24% of under 40s areOrthodox/Haredi, compared with 15% of the 40-64 age group and just 7% of the 65+ age group.

On the other hand, there has been a markedincrease in the rejection of organised religionin Britains wider society. This is re ected, for

example, in a signi cant rise in the number ofpeople reporting No Religion in the UK Census,which increased by 74% between 2001 and 2011.Indeed, today, one in four people in the UKhas no religion. Since Jews, on average, are notimmune from social trends in the world aroundthem, a Jewish shift in this direction may well beoccurring; indeed, this is what NJCS seems tobe indicating (see Figure 10). What is interestingabout this however, is that this secularisationappears to be happening among older respondentsto a greater extent than among younger

respondents. However, it is distinctly possible thatthis is simply because younger groups are beingdemographically replenished by high birth ratesamong the most Orthodox i.e. that it is a sideeffect of this demographic change.

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

Age 65 and aboveAge 40-64Age under 40

Secular/cultural

Traditional

Reform/Progressive

Just Jewish

Orthodox

Haredi (strictly Orthodox)

31%

28%

32%

31%

13%

6%63%

26%

51%

61%

36%

35% 36%

38%

40%

37%

35%

32%

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

31%

31%

34%


21/48


Intermarriage

PrevalenceFor some time now, a key communal concernhas been the potentially negative impact ofintermarriage on Jewish life and the size of thecommunity in Britain.13 Although there is muchdebate about whether intermarriage should be

viewed in solely negative terms,14 here the focusis on the overall prevalence of intermarriage,which, among all currently partnered respondentsin this sample, is 26%. That is to say, one in fourrespondents in a partnership has a non-Jewishpartner (Table 2).

However, prevalence of intermarriage varies bymany criteria. For example, among all marriedrespondents with intact marriages, 23% have non- Jewish spouses. By contrast, among cohabitingrespondents, the level is far higher61% have anon-Jewish partner.

Gender is also a discriminating factor inintermarriage. Jewish women in the sampledemonstrate a slightly higher propensity towardsintermarriage than Jewish men (28% versus25% respectively). However, the data show that,

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

14 Some have argued intermarriage can have positiveexpansionary implications (such as potentiallybroadening the number of people involved in Jewishfamily and communal life). For example, if three out often Jews intermarry, then, in theory, three more peopleare potentially involved in a community.

among married respondents, there are many morefemale converts than male converts. This suggeststhat Jewish-born men are more likely to partnernon-Jewish women who subsequently convertto Judaism, than Jewish-born women are likelyto partner non-Jewish men who subsequently

convert. This contradictory nding is probably aresult of the Jewish custom of matrilineal descent:whereas children of intermarried Jewish womenwill be accepted as being Jewish, this is generallynot the case for the children of intermarried Jewish men.

One of the most discriminatory variables forassessing propensities towards intermarriageis Jewish identity. The survey shows thatintermarriage among currently marriedrespondents who experienced a Harediupbringing, is essentially non-existent in thissample. Among those raised Orthodox it is 10%,but for those who are currently Orthodox it is alsoessentially nil. Among those raised Traditional itis 12%, but just 5% among currently Traditionalrespondents. Among other groups, the prevalenceof intermarriage is much higher. Indeed, it is ashigh as 62% among married respondents who arecurrently Secular/Cultural.

Prevalence by year of marriageIntermarriage is less common among marriedpeople whose marriage took place in the 1970sor earlier, than among those who married morerecently. Less than one in ve (18%) respondentswho got married in the 1970s has a non-Jewishspouse, compared with a quarter (25%) of thosewho got married from 2000 onwards (Figure 13).

Respondents status Partner Jewish Partner not Jewish Total N

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

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

Cohabiting with partner 39% 61% 100% 174

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

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

Table 2. Prevalence of intermarriage by various measures

6


22/48


However, the steep rise in the prevalence ofintermarriage which took place prior to the 1980shas slowed considerably, and is now an almost at level. Additional analysis indicates that thislevelling off also occurs when the combined groupof Reform/Progressive, Just Jewish and Secular/Cultural respondents are analysed separately,

showing 51% intermarrying in the 1990s and 49%

since the year 2000.

This levelling off of intermarriage in recent yearsis an interesting nding that will require furtherinvestigation in future studies. However, it is worthnoting at this stage that not only has this also beenobserved in the United States,15 but it appears tohave begun well before the expansion of Jewisheducational programming in Britain in the 1990s.

Intermarriage and Jewish identityOne of the main reasons that communal concernhas been expressed about intermarriage is becauseintermarried couples tend to be far less Jewishlyengaged than in-married couples. This is alsoborne out by our data, although there are examplesof where this is not quite so clear-cut.

In terms of Jewish religious behaviour, starkdifferences exist between intermarried and in-married respondents, with all indicators pointing

15 See: Kosmin, B.A. et. al. (1991). Highlights of theCJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey. NewYork: Council of Jewish Federations, chart 14, p.14;Kotler-Berkowitz, L., Cohen, S. M. et. al. (2003). TheNational Jewish Population Survey 2000-01. Strength,challenge and diversity in the American Jewishpopulation. New York: United Jewish Communities,table 14, p.16; and Lugo, Cooperman, et. al., p.35,op. cit., p.15.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 0 0 0

s t o

2 0 1

3

1 9 9 0

s

1 9 8 0

s

1 9 7 0

s

B e f o

r e 1 9 7

0

%13%

18%

23%24%

Figure 13: Prevalence of intermarriage for all currentlymarried respondents living with their spouse by yearmarriage took place (N=2,391)

25%

Jewish spouse Non-Jewish spouse Total

Type ofJewishupbringing(N=2,298)

Haredi (strictly Orthodox) 100% 0% 100%

Orthodox 90% 10% 100%

Traditional 88% 12% 100%

Just Jewish 69% 31% 100%

Reform/Progressive 61% 39% 100%

Secular/Cultural 52% 48% 100%

CurrentJewishpracticeN=(2,355)


Orthodox 99% 1% 100%





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


23/48


towards the same conclusion: respondents

with non-Jewish partners are considerably lessobservant than those with Jewish partners. Forexample, whereas attending a seder meal at Pesach(Passover) is almost universal (93%) among the in-married, this is the case for less than half (48%) ofintermarried respondents (Table 4).

In terms of Jewish beliefs, the differences betweenin-married and intermarried are also stark in manyinstances. For example, the vast majority (84%) ofin-married respondents maintain that supportingIsrael is an important part of their Jewish identity,compared with just two in ve (42%) intermarriedrespondents. The intermarried are also less likely

to consider volunteering and charitable giving tobe important aspects of being Jewish (Table 5).

On the other hand, a number of culturalindicators suggest that the differencesbetween the in-married and intermarriedgroups are minimal. For example, 73% of in-married respondents and 70% of intermarriedrespondents feel that Jewish culture (the arts etc)is an important aspect of being Jewish. Otheritems which unite married and intermarried Jews include supporting social justice causes,combating antisemitism and remembering theHolocaust (Table 5).

In-married(N=2,064)

Intermarried(N=608)

Attend a Passover(Pesach) seder mealEvery year/Most years

93% 48%

Fast on Yom KippurEvery year/Most years

84% 33%

Attend a Friday nightmeal most weeks

76% 18%

Light candles at homeEvery Friday night

70% 14%

Only buy meat forhome from a kosherbutcher

68% 4%

Not been to asynagogue service inthe past 12 months

10% 58%

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

* All respondents currently in partnerships

In-married(N=2,064)

Intermarried(N=608)

Supporting Israel 84% 42%

Volunteering tosupport charity

80% 53%

Sharing Jewishfestivals with my family

93% 54%

Donating funds tocharity

85% 60%

Jewish culture (Jewishmusic, art)

73% 70%

Supporting social justice causes

82% 77%

Combatingantisemitism

89% 86%

Remembering theHolocaust

93% 87%

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

* Proportion believing item is Very important or Fairly important


24/48


Jewish education

Prevalence of Jewish schoolattendanceOverall, almost one in three (30%) respondentshas attended a Jewish school for at least part oftheir education, and this is the case for almost aquarter (23%) of respondents who were not raisedin Orthodox or Haredi homes (Table 6). 16

Jewish school attendance is more common amongyounger than older respondents, re ecting asigni cant change in attitudes towards Jewishschooling that has occurred in the Jewishcommunity in the last generation.17 Over half(51%) of respondents in their twenties attendeda Jewish school at some stage, compared withless than a quarter of those in their fties (23%)(Figure 14). (For respondents with school-agechildren, over half (54%) currently have at leastone child in a Jewish school, which is in line withthese ndings.)18

Further analysis of the data indicates thatamong those who were not raised in Orthodoxor Haredi homes, the rate of increase in the

16 Haredi children are universally educated in Jewishschools, as are the vast majority of Orthodox children.

17 See: Valins, O. (2003). The Jewish Day SchoolMarketplace: The attitudes of Jewish parents inGreater London and the South-east towards formaleducation. London: Institute for Jewish PolicyResearch.

18 Currently 37% of those with school age children haveall their chi ldren in Jewish schools, and 17% havesome of their children in Jewish schools (N=785).

proportion of each cohort attending Jewishschools (penetration) has been declining for atleast twenty years (Figure 14). In other words,although more and more people are sending theirchildren to Jewish schools, on average this rate ofincrease is shrinking year on year. For example, Jewish school penetration among non-Orthodoxrespondents in their forties is ten percentage points

higher than for those in their fties, but it is justthree percentage points higher when comparingthe most recent cohorts (i.e. respondents in theirtwenties with those in their thirties).

General attitudes towards JewishschoolsThe question about what motivates parents tochoose a Jewish school for their children has beenexplored in previous JPR research.19 The presentstudy provides some more up-to-date insights intothe attitudes of respondents to Jewish schools.

Over three-quarters (77%) of respondents believethat Jewish schools strengthen pupils Jewishidentity. Further, a clear majority (61%) alsobelieves that Jewish schools increase the chances of Jewish in-marriage (Figure 15).

On other matters, opinions are more divided. Alarge minority (42%) believes that when it comesto preparing children for contemporary Britishsociety, non-Jewish schools are better than Jewishschools, although it is striking to note that over athird (35%) of respondents is unsure either way.Furthermore, opinion is also divided as to whether Jewish schools are better than non-Jewish schoolsat imparting positive moral values to children(32% agree, 31% disagree).

Respondents were also asked their views aboutwhether Jewish schools should be publicly funded,given that they are religiously and ethnicallyselective.20 Almost half (47%) expressed theopinion that public funding for Jewish schools wasindeed appropriate, although a quarter (26%) feelsit is inappropriate (Figure 15).

19 See: Valins, O. (2003). The Jewish Day SchoolMarketplace, op. cit. p.22.

20 Unlike most other countries, such as the UnitedStates and Australia, faith schools in the UK receivesigni cant public funding.

All Non-Orthodox*

Any Jewish schooling(any stage)

30% 23%

At primary level only 12% 10%

At secondary level only 5% 5%

At both primary andsecondary level

13% 8%

Table 6. Proportion of respondents who have at tended aJewish school (N=3,736)

* Includes all those who were not raised in an Orthodox orHaredi home

7


25/48


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

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

51%

45%

38%

23%20%

17%

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

%

35% 35%

30%

14%

10% 9%

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

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

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

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

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

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

Jewish schools increase the chancesof children marrying other Jews

Jewish schools strengthenchildren's Jewish identity

5%

13%

61%

8%

77%

5%

22%9%

42%

23%28%

7%

9%31%

28%

26%

32%

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

47%21%

6%


26/48


Parents viewsWhilst the proportion of Jewish children in Jewish schools has grown steadily over the past

few decades, it is important to consider the likelylimits to this growth, since 100% take-up isunrealistic, especially among the non-Orthodoxcommunity (as indicated in the ndings shownin Figure 14). One of the ways to explore this isto contrast the views of parents who currentlyhave children in Jewish schools with those whodo not. 21

While it is unsurprising that parents with childrencurrently in Jewish schools hold more favourableopinions towards Jewish schools than otherparents, the differences between the two groupsare instructive, not least for providing someinsight into the mindset of parents who have notchosen Jewish schools.

For example, even among those who do not sendtheir children to a Jewish school, three-quarters(75%) nevertheless believe that Jewish schoolsstrengthen childrens Jewish identity. However,

21 It should be noted that the choice of a Jewish schoolis not black and white. Some parents may choose a Jewish school for one child and a non-Jewish schoolfor another. Further, some parents may prefer a Jewishschool at one stage (say primary) but a non-Jewishschool at a later stage. In other words, some parentswho do not currently have a child in a Jewish schoolmay nevertheless be inclined to choose a Jewish schoolin the future, and vice versa.

this group is less convinced that Jewish schoolsincrease the chances of in-marriage: just over half(55%) agrees that they do, compared with three-

quarters (74%) of those who have children in Jewish schools.

Interestingly, only about half (47%) of thoseparents who have not chosen Jewish schools fortheir children believes that non-Jewish schoolsare better than Jewish schools at preparingchildren for wider British society. And onlyone in three (33%) of this group feels that Jewishschools should not be publicly funded (seefootnote 21).

No doubt, preconceived opinions about Jewishschooling in general affect parental decisionsabout whether or not to choose this path fortheir children. But what factors may operate toin uence those opinions in the rst place? Amongthe many potential factors are Jewish identityand income. For example, among Orthodox andHaredi respondents, the choice of a Jewish schoolis almost universal (93% and 95% respectively)(Table 8). Furthermore, two-thirds (65%) ofTraditional parents now choose Jewish schoolsfor their children. However, this is the case forfar lower proportions of more progressive orsecular respondents.

Income is also related to the choices parentsmake about schools. When Orthodox andHaredi respondents are removed from

Statement Proportion of respondents agreeing* withstatement who:

have children in Jewishschools

have children in non-Jewish schools

Jewish schools strengthen childrens Jewish identity 95% 75%

Jewish schools increase the chances of children eventuallymarrying other Jews

74% 55%

Non-Jewish schools are bet ter at preparing children forcontemporary British society than Jewish schools

18% 47%

Jewish schools are better at imparting positive moral valuesthan non-Jewish schools

56% 21%

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

2% 33%

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

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


27/48


the analysis (since Jewish schooling is nearuniversal for these two groups), we ndthat non-Jewish schools are more popularthan Jewish schools at every level of income(Figure 16). This analysis also reveals aninteresting pattern whereby Jewish schools aremost popular among middle-income families,but as household incomes rise (above 110,000per year) Jewish schools are increasingly lesslikely to be chosen. Further investigationis required to con rm why this occurs, but

it strongly suggests that Jewish parents are

choosing non-Jewish private schools whenthey can afford to do so. If this is the case,it may imply that many parents outside theOrthodox or Haredi groups who have the

nancial means to choose, prefer non-Jewishprivate schools over Jewish schools.22

Informal Jewish educationIn addition to formal Jewish schooling, thesurvey also explored involvement in informal Jewish educationor Jewish education outside

the school system. Of the various types explored

22 It should be noted that some Jewish schools areprivate, especially in the Haredi sector, although this isan entirely separate educational marketplace.

Children in Jewish schools No children in Jewish schools Total





Orthodox 93% 7% 100%


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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No children in Jewish schoolsAny child in a Jewish school

250,001+150,001

250,000

110,001

150,000

70,001

110,000

50,001

70,000

30,001

50,000

30,000 or

less

* Note uneven income brackets.

35%38%

65%

46%

54%

33%

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

%

62%

38%

62%

67%

30%

70%

40%

60%


28/48


in the survey, the most common form of Jewisheducation was cheder (part-time classes througha synagogue) and/or a Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony(61% and 60% 23 respectively). Over half the sample(56%) reported having been regularly involvedwith a Jewish youth club or youth movement.Almost one in three (31%) visited Israel as part ofan organised Israel tour. About one in ve (22%)respondents has a GCSE/A-level quali cation in Jewish studies and/or in Hebrew. One in ten (10%)participated in a gap year programme in Israel.

Most respondents (88%) have experienced at leastone of these thirteen activities, and on average,respondents reported doing between three andfour of them.

23 Among male respondents this is 84%, and amongfemale respondents it is 38%.

With an increasingly large number of Jewishchildren entering Jewish schools, we alsoexamined whether there was any evidenceto suggest that this growth is undermininginvolvement in informal types of Jewisheducation. However, an initial assessment ofthe data suggests this is not the case: theredoes not appear to be a substitution of formal(i.e. schooling) for informal Jewish education.Indeed, at every age band, respondents whoattended a Jewish school have done more of theinformal activities listed than those who did not(Figure 18). Further, there is no clear indicationof a slackening off of the trend for youngerrespondents who went to a Jewish school.

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

Taglit-Birthright Israel programme

Study at a yeshivah/seminary outside Israel

An organised Israel tour with a Jewish school

Study at a yeshivah/seminary in Israel

A gap year programme in Israel with ayouth movement

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

Jewish lessons from a relative or tutor

An organised Israel tour with a Jewish youthmovement or organisation

A Jewish youth summer camp in the UK

Membership of a university Jewish society

Regular involvement in a Jewish youthclub/movement

Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony

Part-time classes in a synagogue or cheder

60%

56%

61%

39%

36%

31%

30%

22%

9%

7%

10%

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

4%

2%


29/48


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Did not attend a Jewish school Attended a Jewish school

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

4.8

3.5

6.8

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

M e a n n u m b e r o

f i t e m s

5.9

3.4

5.0

5.5

4.4

5.7

3.9

3.1

4.4

3.0

4.1

2.83.1

2.7

3.4

2.6

3.2

2.3

3.0

2.6

3.2

2.3

1.72.0

1.6


30/48


Charitable giving

Amount givenOne of the key tenets of Judaism is to help lessadvantaged people, and the proliferation of Jewish charities in the community is testamentto the importance of this principle. 24 Indeed,the future functioning of the community is, to alarge extent, dependent on the generosity of itsmembers. It is therefore important to understandwho gives, and how much they give.

Of those who responded, 93% donated moneyto a charity (Jewish or otherwise), in the yearbefore the survey (Figure 19).25 The mostcommon amount given was between 100and 500. Almost two out of ve respondents(38%) gave less than 100 over the year, anda similar proportion gave between 100 and500. Although 29% gave over 500, large

24 See: Goldberg, J. and Kosmin, B. (1998). Patternsof charitable giving among British Jews. London:Institute for Jewish Policy Research; and Halfpenny,P. and Reid, M. (2000). The nancial resources ofthe UK Jewish voluntary sector. London: Institutefor Jewish Policy Research. The Halfpenny and Reidreport found that the UK Jewish voluntary sectorat that time comprised just under 2,000 nanciallyindependent organisations.

25 9% of respondents chose not to answer this question,and the gures in this section are exclusive of thesenon-respondents.

charitable donations were infrequent: 3% of therespondents donated more than 10,000.

Charitable priorities and thedeterminants of givingRespondents were asked how they hadprioritised their charitable giving. A greaterproportion prioritises non-Jewish charities(45%) than Jewish charities (37%) (Figure 20).This includes a quarter (25%) who donatedexclusively to non-Jewish charities and justunder one in ten (8%) who donated exclusivelyto Jewish charities.

The survey also enquired about priorities in termsof respondents preferred charitable causes. AsFigure 21 shows, no single cause dominates, butrather, priorities are wide ranging. Just over onein three (34%) respondents prioritises Jewishcharities in the UK, whereas 29% prioritiseGeneral UK charities. Just over one in ten (12%)prioritises aid for the poor outside the UK, and just under one in ten prioritises their giving toIsrael charities.

Respondents Jewish identity is closely relatedto their giving priorities. For example, almostall (95%) Haredi respondents prioritise Jewishor Israel charities (Table 9). Similarly, 82% ofOrthodox respondents also prioritise these

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

More than10,000

2,001 10,000

501 2,000

101 500

51 100

Up to 50Nothing

%

7%

16% 15%

33%

3%

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

18%

8%

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

8


31/48


charities. By contrast, just 10% of Secular/Cultural respondents do so; their priorities aregeneral (non-Jewish) UK charities (44%) andoverseas aid (26%).

Age is also related to prioritisation of giving.Younger people tend to give less money tocharities than older people (because income

generally increases with age). However,comparing the charitable priorities of the differentgenerations, we see little difference betweenyounger and older respondents (Figure 22). Theone exception is Israel charities, which are morelikely to be supported by older than youngerrespondents. (The category None of these isalso age sensitive, but it may simply indicate that

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

A l l

M o r e

t h a n h

a l f

A b o

u t h a

l f

L e s s t h a

n h a l f

N o n e

%

25%

20%18%

29%

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

8%

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

N o n e

o f t h e s

e

I s r a e

l c h a r i t i e

s

A i d f

o r t h e p

o o r i n o

t h e r

c o u n

t r i e s

( n o t U

K )

G e n e

r a l c h a r

i t i e s

i n t h e U

K

J e w i

s h c h a r

i t i e s

i n t h e U

K

%

34%

29%

12%

9%

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

16%

Jewishcharities in

the UK

Generalcharitiesin the UK

Aid for the poorin other countries(outside the UK)

Israelcharities

Noneof

these

Total N

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 9: Charitable giving priorities by current Jewish identity*

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


32/48


younger people are less likely to have strong

preferences compared with older people, e.g.they are more likely to give in equal measure tovarious causes.)

The data also show that men and women havedifferent priorities (Table 10). Most speci cally,men are more likely to prioritise Jewish charitiesthan women. Whereas four out of ten (39%) menprioritise Jewish charities in the UK, this is thecase for only three out of ten (30%) women. Theopposite trend is notable for general UK charitiesto which women are more likely to donatethan men.

Unsurprisingly, income is also an importantfactor in charitable giving (Table 11). The largerthe respondents income, the greater are theircharitable donations in absolute terms. 26 Thus,62% of those with personal incomes below20,000 gave less than 100 to charity in the yearbefore the survey, whereas almost half (48%) ofthose with incomes above 110,000 gave at least2,000 in charitable donations.

Interestingly, income is not only related to thesize of the donation, but also to the destination.

26 Note this is not the same as generosity, measured interms of the proportion of a persons income devotedto charitable donations.

For example, respondents who are least likelyto prioritise Jewish charities tend to give thesmallest total charitable donations. By contrast,respondents who are most likely to prioritise Jewish charities, tend to give the largest charitabledonations overall (Figure 23). In other words, thebiggest donors prioritise Jewish charities.27

Ultimately, multiple factors are involved inthe likelihood of a person making a charitabledonation and the size of that donation. Some ofthese factors even interact with each other, suchas age and income (young people have lowerincomes than those in middle age and older

27 This was con rmed by assessing the full spectrum ofcharitable priorities.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Age 65+Age 40-64Age under 40

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

Generalcharities in the UK

Jewish charitiesin the UK

31%

36%36%

12% 12% 11%

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

%

32%

27%

30%

8% 8%

11%

18%

16%

12%

MaleN=1,799

FemaleN=1,941

Jewish charities in the UK 39% 30%

General charities in the UK 25% 33%

Aid for the poor in othercountries

12% 12%

Israel charities 9% 9%

None of these 15% 16%

100% 100%

Table 10. Charitable giving priorities by sex


33/48


people have lower incomes due to retirement).Future work will determine which factors arethe most important in determining the outcome

of Jewish charitable donations, and indeed,what is most likely to prompt a donation in the

rst place.

0

20

40

60

80

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

Above 10,0002,001 - 10,000501 - 2,000101 - 50051 - 100Up to 50

59%

22%20%

48%

17%

35%

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

%

55%

20%25%

35%

17%

48%

20%

9%

71%

25%

14%

62%

N Personal income Size of donation

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

858 Under 20,000 62% 26% 8% 3% 100%

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

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

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

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

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


34/48


9 Health and welfareThe National Jewish Community Surveyexplored a wide range of issues of concernto Jewish charities operating across thecommunity, and in this section we investigatesome of the initial ndings relating to healthand welfare, especially in terms of the elderlyand children with learning dif culties anddisabilities. Despite the recent boom inOrthodox and Haredi births, 28 the Jewish

population of the UK is ageing and has on-going care needs, and in part because of therecent boom in Jewish births, childrens needsare likely to become a growing issue.29 Thissection only scratches the surface of the NJCSdata that have been gathered.

State of healthClearly, the ability of people to carry out normaldaily activities (such as washing and dressing)becomes limited as they get older. Half (48%)of all respondents report experiencing at least

some limitation in carrying out such day-to-day activities by the time they reach their

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

29 See for example: Boyd, J. (2011). Child poverty

mid-seventies (Figure 24). By their nineties,this proportion rises to four out of ve (81%).Indeed, over half (53%) of people in theirnineties report their day-to-day activities beinglimited a lot due to ill health.

With respect to respondents current state ofhealth, the most common health concern is thebroad category of pain and discomfort. Over

half (55%) of respondents aged 65 and abovereport suffering some level of pain and discomfort(Figure 25). In terms of more speci c problems,almost two out of ve (38%) respondents in thisage group experienced dif culties with walking.Almost one in ten (9%) respondents aged 65 andabove said that they had problems when it came towashing and dressing themselves.

Finally, although the UKs National HealthService provides free healthcare for all, justunder half (47%) of all respondents nevertheless

report being covered by a private healthinsurance scheme.

and deprivation in the British Jewish community.London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Limited a littleLimited a lot

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

%

9%16%

22%

39%40%

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

40%

28%

53%

28%

14%9%6%

2%3%


35/48


Care preferencesOne of the major welfare services on which thecommunity prides itself is care for the elderly.Therefore, the survey asked respondents how theymight wish to be cared for when they are no longerable to care for themselves. A wide variety ofpreferences was expressed, but the most commondesirefor two out of ve (40%) respondents aged65 and aboveis Independent living with accessto care/support (Figure 26). One in ve (21%)respondents would prefer a Mix of relatives andpaid professionals in my own home, whilst almostone in ve (17%) would prefer to be supportedby Paid professionals in my own home. It isnotable that just 6% of the sample aged 65 yearsand above expressed a preference for a care home,the traditional approach taken by the communityfor looking after its elderly and in rm members.Of course, desires may not necessarily correlatewith need in the longer term. Despite the bestof intentions, the desire for Independent livingor living at home may not ultimately be feasiblefor many.

Further analysis indicated that respondentsdesires did not signi cantly differ between those

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

At least someproblems washing/

dressing myself

At least someanxiety or depression

At least someproblems with

performingwork/housework

At least someproblems

walking about

At least somemoderate painor discomfort

%

55%

38%

27%

22%

9%

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

Other, 1%My relatives intheir home, 1%

Carehome

6%

My relatives inmy own home

14%

Paid professionalsin my own home

17%

Mix of relativesand paid professionals

in my own home21%

Independent livingwith access

to care/support40%

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

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


36/48


with limitations in their daily activities and thosewithout limitations.

These respondents (aged 65 years and over)were also asked if, in the event that they ever

needed to be looked after in a care home, itwas important that that home had kosher foodfacilities. The analysis revealed that, overall, alarge majority of respondents (62%) in this agegroup had no particular preference for care in a Jewish environment with kosher facilities. This isstrongly related to respondents Jewish identity:we found that, among Orthodox respondents, thedesire for a kosher care home is universal (97%),and among Traditional respondents it is also verystrong (79%). But among all other respondents,the desire for kosher facilities in a care homeis considerably weaker (e.g. 16% for Reform/Progressive respondents) (Table 12).

Social isolationThe survey also enquired into levels of socialisolation based on the frequency of interactionwith relatives and friends. Almost all respondents(90%) report speaking to relatives and friends

weekly or more often (Figure 27). This is also thecase in terms of written communication, includingtexting and email (87%). However, in terms offace-to-face visits, the levels of communicationare less frequent: one in ve (22%) respondentsvisits relatives and friends infrequently (i.e. onceor twice a month or less), and almost two in ve(38%) report receiving visits from relatives andfriends similarly infrequently.

To some extent, age is related to the frequencyof face-to-face contact with relatives andfriends. It appears to be less of a factor interms of receiving visits, but more of a factor

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

Prefer carein a Jewish

envi

Jews in the UK 2013 - NJCS Preliminary Findings.january 2014

Documents

Transcript of Jews in the UK 2013 - NJCS Preliminary Findings.january 2014