2019Jewish Community Study

A socio-demographic portrait of the Jewish community in Sarasota-Manatee

Cohen Center Authors: Matthew Boxer

Matthew A. BrooknerEliana Chapman

Janet Krasner Aronson

Sponsored in part by a grant from:

Technical Appendices

Table of Contents

Appendix A: Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Sampling Frame ......................................................................................................................................... 12. Sample Design ........................................................................................................................................... 23. Survey Instrument and Data Collection ................................................................................................. 34. Field Procedures ........................................................................................................................................ 45. Data Outcomes .......................................................................................................................................... 56. SSRI Data Synthesis for Population Estimates ..................................................................................... 67. Weighting .................................................................................................................................................. ..88. Final Population Estimates .................................................................................................................... 129. Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 1310. Margin of Error ..................................................................................................................................... 1311. Bias and Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 1312. Qualitative Coding ................................................................................................................................ 14

Appendix B: Comparison Charts .................................................................................................................. 15 How to Read the Comparison Charts ...................................................................................................... 15 Subgroups Used for Comparison Charts ................................................................................................. 16

Appendix C: Latent Class Analysis................................................................................................................ 69 Appendix D: Survey Instrument and Codebook ........................................................................................ 74

Screener ......................................................................................................................................................... 74 Household Composition ............................................................................................................................ 74 Respondent Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 77 Adult Roster ................................................................................................................................................. 81 Child Roster .................................................................................................................................................. 94 Multigenerational ........................................................................................................................................105 Residency .....................................................................................................................................................106 Preschool ......................................................................................................................................................110 PJ Library .....................................................................................................................................................112 K-12 Jewish Education ..............................................................................................................................112 Adult Children in High School .................................................................................................................119 Young Adults ..............................................................................................................................................121 Religious Life ...............................................................................................................................................122

Jewish Life ..................................................................................................................................................130 Subpopulations ...........................................................................................................................................136 Israel.............................................................................................................................................................139 Organizations .............................................................................................................................................141 Activities ..................................................................................................................................................... 151 Philanthropy .............................................................................................................................................. 153 Health and Well-Being ............................................................................................................................. 158 Labor Force Participation & Financial Well-Being ............................................................................. 164 Concluding Thoughts ............................................................................................................................... 169

Appendix E: Study Documentation ........................................................................................................... 170 Pre-Notification Letter............................................................................................................................. 170 Briefing Materials for Interviewers ........................................................................................................ 172

Appendix F: Maps ........................................................................................................................................ 184

Appendix A: Methodology

Overview

CMJS/SSRI has developed innovative methods to estimate the size and characteristics of the Sarasota-Manatee Jewish community. As survey techniques have become more refined, the barriers to reaching respondents have become increasingly difficult to overcome. Researchers typically experience limitations in reaching respondents due to the proliferation of survey research, the prevalence of cell phones, and caller ID/blocking. Low-incidence populations are particularly hard to reach using the traditional method of random digit dialing (RDD) because the likelihood of reaching someone in the target population depends upon the size of that group relative to the population as a whole. To address these barriers, CMJS has utilized a research design that incorporates two innovations:

• Data from an extended sample of email-only respondents• Use of organizational data to correct for sampling bias

The research design for the Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Community Study utilizes random sampling from an identified frame, or list, of the known population. Local Jewish organizations provided their own lists. These lists were combined with a purchased list of likely Jewish households within the geographic area and were then deduplicated. The combined list constituted the sampling frame from which a primary random sample of households was drawn. Because this primary sample was a random selection from the overall frame, it is assumed to be representative of the entire frame. For that reason, data collected from the random sample were used to estimate overall population characteristics.

To supplement the primary random sample, a second sample was drawn from a frame consisting of the remaining households who had an email address. Information from these households increased the amount of data available from populations of interest and allowed for more detailed analysis of the characteristics of the community.

1. Sampling Frame

The 2019 Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Community Study implemented a dual-mode Internet and telephone survey to reach year-round and seasonal residents of the Sarasota-Manatee area. In the absence of an area probability or RDD frame, we built a sampling frame from the combined mailing lists of Jewish organizations in Sarasota and Manatee counties. The numbers and types of organizations included in the lists are shown in Table A1.

1

Table A1. Composition of strata Number Type Organization

1 Children and young adults 4 organization lists

2 Adults 9 organization lists

3 Synagogues 8 organization lists

4 Other lists 7 organization lists

5 Ethnic names MelissaData (data purchase)

In order to find any Jewish-connected households not already known to the organized Jewish community, a list of possible Jewish households was purchased from a commercial data broker, MelissaData, and was added to the sample. This list identifies households based on their geography, and then further restricts households to those with Jewish last names and first names. This list, referred to as the “ethnic names list,” consisted of 14,582 households that were identified as likely to include someone who was Hebrew-speaking or Jewish by ethnicity, ethnic group, or religion, and did not appear on an organization’s list; these households represented the “unaffiliated” Jewish community. The ethnic names list included an indicator whether a household was likely to have children or not. Households that appeared solely on the ethnic names list, and not on any organization’s list, were assigned to separate groupings, called “strata,” based on this indicator.

The organizational and purchased lists were combined, cleaned, and deduplicated to ensure that no unique household appeared on the list more than once. Households without any mailing address were removed from the sampling frame because they could not be fully identified. The combined list-based sampling frame consisted of 33,179 households.

2. Sample Design

The sample design for this study accounted for the fact that the area includes a large number of part-year residents, some of whom would be listed on organizations’ lists under their local Sarasota-Manatee address, and others of whom would be listed under their out-of-area permanent address.

The sampling frame was divided into five strata based on expected characteristics of the household inferred from the household’s appearance on organizational lists. The composition of the five strata is shown in Table A2. Households that appeared on multiple lists were placed in the lowest-number strata for which they were eligible; for example, a household appearing on a “kids and young adult” list (stratum 1), a synagogue list (stratum 3), and the Ethnic Names list (stratum 5) would be assigned to stratum 1.

Once the region and strata assignments were made, a primary sample of 6,700 total potential respondents was randomly selected from across each region/strata cell (Table A2). The sampling rate of each stratum was designed to oversample likely Jewish households and likely households with children in order to maximize the representation of those groups within the final sample.

Concurrent to the primary sample, a backup sample of 2,900 primary-eligible households was drawn from the remainder of the sampling frame, to be used as needed to ensure the targeted number of completed sample surveys were completed. In the event that the households in the backup sample

2

were not needed for the primary sample to reach the targeted number of completed surveys, they would be treated as part of the supplementary sample. Following selection of the primary and backup samples, an email-only supplement was identified. This sample frame of 12,978 households for the email supplement included all households in the email sub-strata that were not selected into the primary sample. In all, 695 of those households were selected into the email-only supplement. The combination of the primary sample, backup sample, and the email-only supplement is referred to as the “full sample.” Table A2. List-based sample size by strata

Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Stratum 4 Stratum 5 Total

Frame 1,690 1,668 3,354 16,325 11,535 34,572

Primary 800 600 750 750 3800 6,700

Backup 400 300 350 350 1500 2,900

Supplement 387 308 0 0 0 695

3. Survey Instrument and Data Collection The survey instrument was designed in collaboration with the advisory committee convened by the Jewish Federation of Sarasota-Manatee. The questions were crafted to minimize potential bias and any burden on respondents. Where possible, questions, language, and definitions were adopted from previously published Jewish community survey questionnaires, allowing for greater confidence in their reliability. The questionnaire was divided into two parts, a screener and the survey itself. The screener section was asked of all respondents to determine eligibility. Any household in the sample was considered eligible if it contained at least one adult aged 18 or older who lived in Sarasota County or Manatee County for at least part of the year and considered him- or herself to be Jewish. A total of 1,611 households in the primary sample completed the screener and of those, 772 were screened into the survey. Qualifying households proceeded to the main survey, which included sections on basic sociodemographic information, engagement in Jewish life, and perceptions of various aspects of Jewish communal life in Sarasota-Manatee. In order to minimize the burden on respondents, a series of complex skip patterns (“branching”) were created to ensure that respondents were only asked questions that pertained to their specific life situation or experience. The online survey took between 20-30 minutes to complete. Respondents completing the survey over the telephone usually completed it in 25-40 minutes. However, the amount of time required to complete the survey varied depending on household composition and the degree of detail respondents were willing to offer for open-ended questions.

3

The survey and CATI interface were programmed by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. Two modes of data collection were utilized: online and telephone. The online and telephone instruments were identical – when a survey was completed over the phone, the telephone interviewer would fill out the online version. The survey instrument is presented in the form of a codebook in Appendix D.

4. Field Procedures Prenotification letters were mailed to the primary sample of 6,700 households on January 7, 2019. These letters explained the purpose of the survey and provided each household with a unique link to complete the survey independently online. Households for which one or more e-mail addresses were available also received these letters electronically on January 7, 2019. A sample of the prenotification letter is shown in Appendix E. A survey invitation was sent to one email address for each household. If email messages “bounced” or were undeliverable, another email address from the same household was substituted if available. After one week, households that had not completed the survey were contacted by telephone. The primary goal of telephone contact was to administer the survey over the phone if the respondent was unable or unwilling to complete the survey online, or if the respondent simply preferred to complete the survey over the phone. If the respondent was unwilling to complete the survey over the phone at the time of the call, he or she was asked for a better time to be called again or for an email address to re-send the link to the survey online. Systematic respondent selection did not take place. The first adult reached in the household was interviewed. Calling began on January 14, 2019, starting with the households for which phone numbers were available but email addresses were not. Calling concluded on April 5, 2019. Ten email reminders were sent for all non-completed surveys during the field period. Data collection was conducted and supervised by UNH, who was responsible for selecting and training callers, supervising and monitoring calling, tracking dispositions, and sending email reminders. Interviewers and supervisors were trained in survey procedures for this specific project, including the study’s sponsor, target population, and eligibility criteria; the survey instrument; pronunciation of Hebrew and Yiddish words; and entering open-ended responses. In addition to survey-specific training, interviewers also receive general training in telephone procedures and interviewing techniques. Only interviewers who had undergone this basic training worked on the project. Interviewers were provided with paper sheets with frequently asked questions and pronunciation guides, names of Jewish organizations and congregations, and background information on selected concepts. Callers made up to five attempts to reach all households in the primary sample who did not complete the survey online in response to email requests or who did not have email addresses. The maximum number of attempts for any one case (across all phone numbers) was 11. Callers offered to conduct survey interviews over the telephone or, if requested, to send the household members their unique link to complete the survey online at their convenience.

4

Households were contacted repeatedly at different days and times to determine whether available contact information was correct. Households whose available contact information was confirmed to be outdated, who had no contact information, and those for whom the status was uncertain were searched in online public records databases to find updated information. CMJS research assistants searched for additional contact information and added phone numbers to the calling list as they were identified.

The supplementary sample was conducted as an email-only survey that was not accompanied by prenotification letters or phone calls. The survey instrument for the email sample was identical to the one used for the primary sample. Email invitations were sent to the 3,595 households in the backup and supplementary samples on January 9, with 10 reminders on for non-completed surveys during the field period.

On March 6, 2019, 50% of strata 1-4 of the backup sample was released into the primary sample to ensure the targeted number of completes was reached. The remaining cases were added to the supplementary sample. This increased the realized primary sample to 7,400 and the realized supplement to 2,895.

Data collection ended on April 18, 2019. A cleaned dataset was prepared by UNH Survey Center.

5. Data Outcomes

In the overall primary sample, 1,611 households completed the screener, with 772 screening in and 838 screening out (Table A3). The overall response rate was 37.8% for the primary sample (AAPOR RR4). For the combined list-based sample (primary plus supplement), 2,021 households completed the screener, and of those, 1,125 were screened into the full survey (Table A4). The overall response rate was 30.5% (AAPOR RR4).

Table A3. Outcome rates by strata for overall primary sample (AAPOR)

Strata Sample Size Screened In

Screened Out

Response Rate 4

Refusal Rate 2

Cooperation Rate 1

Contact Rate 2

Children and young adults 1,000 151 215 43.6% 21.6% 66.7% 65.3%

Adults 750 269 34 54.7% 19.2% 73.9% 74.1%

Synagogues 925 199 55 42.0% 26.7% 59.9% 70.2%

Other lists 925 69 127 44.4% 21.2% 66.6% 66.7%

Ethnic names 3,800 84 407 27.9% 28.0% 49.4% 56.3%

Total 7,400 772 838 37.8% 23.8% 60.8% 50.6%

Table A4. Overall outcome rates by sample type

Strata Sample Size

Screened In

Screened Out

Response Rate 4

Refusal Rate 2

Cooperate Rate 1

Contact Rate 2

Primary 7,400 772 838 37.8% 23.8% 60.8% 50.6%

Supplement 2,895 353 58 11.1% 5.9% 64.8% 17.0%

Total 10,295 1,125 896 30.5% 18.7% 61.4% 39.1%

5

Twenty-five respondents were initially screened into the survey but after inspection of responses were determined to include no Jewish adults or that the adults were Messianic Jews and therefore ineligible for the survey.1 An additional 63 respondents screened into the survey but did not complete the household roster, and so were not included in analyses. The final sample consisted of 1,038 households (Table A5).

Table A5. Sarasota-Manatee by sample type Primary Supplement Total

Eligible households 713 325 1,038

Ineligible households

Screen out 838 58 896 Incomplete 41 22 63 Reclassified screened out 20 5 25 Total 1,610 410 2,020

6. SSRI Data Synthesis for Population Estimates

Since 2005, the American Jewish Population Project (AJPP) at the Steinhardt Social Research Institute (SSRI) has identified and collected hundreds of nationally representative surveys of the US population to produce estimates of the Jewish population in the continental United States, its states, metropolitan areas, and counties (or groups of counties). These estimates provide an independent, external reference for the basic demographic profile of the Jewish population. This population profile serves as a point of reference for the community as a whole and for those who conduct targeted surveys of the population and have no frame of reference for evaluating the representativeness of their survey sample. Details of the methods are reported elsewhere.2

The data synthesis method demonstrates how an auxiliary data source can be constructed to provide independent, census-like estimates of the size and characteristics of the adult Jewish-by-religion (JBR) population in the United States at the county level.3 These estimates of the adult JBR population may then be used to generate new post-stratification weights. These new post-stratification weights are then applied to the targeted study of the Jewish population.

Summary of Data

The full sample of surveys in the AJPP database spans the years 2000 to 2017, with an additional sample of surveys from 1988 to 1992, for more than 900 independent samples and a total combined sample size of more than 1.4 million respondents, of whom over 34,000 identify as Jewish by religion. Samples include those conducted as part of a series, such as the American National Election Studies,4 the Religion and Public Life Survey conducted annually by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES).5 In addition, the sample includes surveys conducted regularly by major news organizations (e.g., CBS, New York Times). Where a single survey may have included multiple sampling methods or frames (e.g., landline versus cellphone), each is treated as a separate independent sample, with unique identifiers to indicate series membership.6 For surveys that included oversamples, only the representative portion of the samples were included in the analyses unless the oversamples were of groups

6

estimated directly in the population models – for example, age or race – in which case the oversample contributed only to estimation of that particular group. All of the surveys provide data on those who identify as Jewish by religion (JBR), which is the largest proportion of the Jewish population and therefore serves as the baseline group for generating population estimates. A smaller number of surveys include assessment of religious upbringing or parents' religious/ethnic identification, or non-religious Jewish identification (for instance, “Do you consider yourself Jewish?”) in addition to current religious affiliation.7 Often the religious identification question is asked as “What is your religion? Is it Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, something else, or no religion?” Nearly all include Jewish as one of the discrete options. An increasing number of surveys provide no discrete options, ask simply, “What is your religion, if any?”, and record all self-generated responses to the question. Question wording is recorded in order to examine whether there are differences in Jewish population estimates across the surveys. Most of the surveys specifically included a “no religion” option (none, non-religious, atheist, or agnostic). Recent research has suggested that the inclusion of none as a specific option increases the proportion of those who identify as “no religion.”8 Given that a substantial proportion (up to 25%) of the national Jewish population might identify as no religion when asked about religion, this aspect of question wording was also recorded to see if it is also associated with lower estimates of Jewish identification by religion, and if higher proportions identifying as “no religion” is associated with lower estimated proportions of Jewish identification overall. The present report is based on a subset of national samples (145) which were conducted between the years 2012 and 2017 and which provided county level information. The subset included 708 respondents from the counties of Sarasota and Manatee, of whom 28 identify as Jewish by religion. Modeling The full poststratification model specification included fixed effects for demographics and county. Demographic variables include age (18-24; 25-34; 35-44; 45-54; 55-64; 65+), race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White; Non-Hispanic Black; Hispanic; Other), sex (Male/Female), and educational attainment (Non-College / College). These mirror the categories used in the national data synthesis model. Sarasota and Manatee Jewish Population Estimates Results from the model provide overall population estimates for the combined area of Sarasota and Manatee counties. The overall estimate of the adult population who identify as Jewish by religion is 3.4% (95% CI: 2.3%-4.7%), corresponding to 22,600 adults (95% CI: 15,200 to 31,200).

Estimating the number of JNRs (Jews of no religion) The next step in estimating the size of the adult Jewish population was to estimate the number of adult JNRs. Estimates of the number of JNRs are not directly available from the data synthesis and must be approximated from other sources. We used a ratio of JNRs to JBRs derived from the Pew study of American Jews.

7

The resulting target estimates for JBR and JNR adults are show in Table A8. The resulting proportion of JNRs to total Jewish adults was 0.15. Table A6. JBR and JNR targets for postestimation

JBR Adults JNR Adults Total Sarasota and Manatee Counties 22,611 3,990 26,601

7. Weighting

Overview of weighting procedures used The purpose of developing survey weights for the sample is to adjust the survey data so that they will represent the population from which they were drawn. This is done in two ways: base weights, which are based on sample design, and poststratification weights, which are adjustments to external benchmarks. For base weights, the data are adjusted to match the sampling frame by calculating the strata-specific probabilities of selection into the sample and rates of response. By selectively adjusting weights upward (for respondents from strata in which households were less likely to be selected or to respond) and downward (for respondents from strata in which households were more likely to be selected or to respond), the resulting weights adjust the data to match the frame from which they were drawn. Poststratification, the second phase of weighting, adjusts the data to match known population parameters. In this case, the known parameters that were utilized were the Enhanced RDD estimates of the JBR adult population and their age distribution, and the JNR estimate, as described in the previous section. The number of children currently enrolled in Jewish day schools and part-time schools and the number of synagogue members are provided by local organizations. After applying the base weights, the sample is adjusted again to match these parameters. This step yields the primary sample weights for households and respondents. The weighted primary sample was used to estimate the size of the adult population for multiple categories of religious identity as well as the distribution of Jewish denominational affiliation. For the supplemental sample, base weights were calculated for the email portion of the frame based on differential probability of selection and response. After applying base weights, poststratification weights were calculated to adjust the full sample to the JBR and age estimates from data synthesis, the number of children in day school, as well as the JNR estimate and denominational affiliation calculated from the primary sample. At the end of the process, a datafile was created with one record per household. In this file, each record has four weights:

8

1) wtprimhh: the weight of the household for the primary sample 2) wtfullhh: the weight of the household for the full sample 3) wtprimresp: the respondent’s individual weight for the primary sample 4) wtfullresp: the respondent’s individual weight for the full sample

Design and base weights Base weights were calculated separately for the primary sample and the full sample. Base weights are calculated as the product of the design weight (inverse of the probability of selection into the sample) and the nonresponse weight (inverse of the probability of responding after being selected into the sample). For the primary sample, data were weighted separately within each sub-stratum by the probability of selection into the sample (design weights) and nonresponse. To calculate the design weight, the preliminary frame size was adjusted to account for the presumed ineligibility of a proportion of the households in the sample frame. Ineligible households identified during the data collection period of the survey are those households that are found to be duplicates, deceased, or infirm. The adjusted frame size for each stratum was calculated as: Adjusted frame size = Frame size × (Number eligible households ÷ Number selected households) The design weight for each stratum was calculated as: Design weight = Adjusted frame size ÷ Number eligible households Respondents were those who partially or fully completed the survey. Partial surveys were those in which the screening data were completed (whether the respondent was screened in or out). The nonresponse weight for each stratum was calculated as: Nonresponse weight = Number eligible households ÷ Number respondent households The base weight is calculated by multiplying the design weight by the nonresponse weight: Base weight = Design weight × Nonresponse weight

Poststratification In order to adjust the sample to account for the known population of Jews in Sarasota-Manatee, the process of poststratification was used.9 In order to adjust to the number of JBR adults, the survey data were reviewed based on responses to religion questions for each adult in the household. Each adult received a preliminary designation of Jewish by religion (JBR), Jewish not be religion (JNR), Jews of multiple religions (JMR), Jewish

9

background (JB), Jewish affinity (JA), or not Jewish. All households with no JBR, JNR, or JMR adults were classified as non-Jewish and reclassified as screened out of the sample. The first stage of the poststratification was conducted on an individual rather than a household level.10 The file was converted to an individual-level file with one record created for each adult in the household. The weights of the individual records initially were set at the weights of the household record, resulting in a total weight that added up to the number of individuals rather than the number of households. The individual records were poststratified to match the JBR and JNR counts. Individuals in the data file who were JNR or JMR were adjusted to the JNR estimates. Characteristics of JNRs, and all of non-Jewish adults, were derived from the base weights. The result of this step were interim individual poststratification weights for each individual adult. Because further poststratification weights were conducted at the household level, the interim individual weights were converted to preliminary household weights by taking the mean of all of the individual poststratified weights for all adults in the household for the respondent record.11 All records for non-respondents were dropped.

Poststratifying to known parameters The second stage of postestimation applied to households rather than individuals. At this stage, we further poststratified the sample using known parameters of the Jewish community: day school enrollment, part-time school enrollment, pre-school enrollment, synagogue membership, and donating to a local Jewish federation. To make use of these numbers, the education enrollment numbers needed to be converted to a number of households that they each represented. Local schools provided estimates of 140 children enrolled in Jewish day schools, 190 in Jewish part-time schools, and 196 children in Jewish early childhood centers. To use this estimate for individual adult weights, we estimated the number of households that this represented and the number of adults in those households. For each household, we categorized it as a day school household if any children were enrolled in day school and a part-time household if any children were enrolled in part-time school. We coded synagogue households if they were members of a Conservative, Reform, or other denomination “brick and mortar” synagogue. For households that had any children in school we estimated: Mean (weighted) day school (DS) students per DS household Mean (weighted) part-time school (PT) students per PT household Mean (weighted) early childhood school (EC) students per EC household To estimate households, we used the following formula: DS household count = (DS students total ÷ mean DS students per household) PT household count = (PT students total ÷ mean PT students per household)

10

EC household count = (EC students total ÷ mean EC students per household)

For synagogue households, membership estimates provided by the synagogues in the region indicated that there were 405 households belonging to Conservative synagogues, 1,516 to Reform synagogues, and 600 to other synagogues.

The last stage of the poststratification of the primary sample was to adjust the number of households to match the early childhood households, day school households, part-time school households, and denominational synagogue households. The results of this step yielded the primary household weight.

Respondent weights: Sarasota-Manatee only

At this stage, the Sarasota-Manatee dataset was split off from the entire weighting data file.

Weights for individual respondents, primary respondent weights, were created for analysis of individual level characteristics. Respondents were poststratified to represent all adults in the population.

Using the primary household weights, estimates were generated for the total number of adults for the following parameters:

• Jewish type (JBR, JNR, JMR) or non-Jewish• Seasonality• Age and gender• Jewish denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Other, None)• Adults in day school household• Adults in part-time school household• Adults in early childhood school household• Adults in synagogue (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, No specific denomination)• Geography

The starting weight for the respondent poststratification was the interim individual weight for the respondent. This was poststratified using the parameters listed above to yield the primary respondent weight.

Weights for the full sample

For the full sample, base weights were calculated differently than for the primary sample but the poststratification processes were similar. The full sample was a combination of the primary and supplementary (email-only) samples. All list-based households in the frame were eligible to be selected into the primary sample, but only households with email addresses could be selected into the supplement. Furthermore, households in the supplement received a lower level of effort than did those in the primary, resulting in different probabilities of response.

The full frame was divided conceptually into an email and a non-email frame (the list-based frame). All households from the list-based frame with email addresses were assigned into the email frame.

11

For households without email addresses, the base weight was calculated identically to the way it was for the primary sample. For households with email addresses, households were considered to have been selected into the full sample if they were in the primary or the supplement.

Base weights for primary and supplement The design weight for each email stratum was calculated as:

Design weight = Email frame size ÷ (Primary email sample + Supplement email sample)

The probability of response depended on the level of effort so was different for primary and supplement subsets.

Nonresponse weight, email primary = Primary email sample ÷ Primary email respondents

Nonresponse weight, email supplement = Supplement email sample ÷ Supplement email respondents

The base weight is calculated by multiplying the design weight by the nonresponse weight:

Base weight = Design weight × Nonresponse weight

Poststratification of full sample Poststratification of the full sample was conducted in the same way as for the primary sample, as described above. However, all poststratification targets for the full sample were the estimates generated from the primary sample only.

8. Final Population Estimates

Precise Population Estimates with Confidence Intervals Population numbers presented in the report were rounded so as to avoid overprecision – that is, the misleading implication that our estimates are correct down to the single digit. The precise population estimates with 95% confidence intervals are shown in Table A10. For example, the best estimate of the total Jewish population is 28,830 people. Given the size of the sample and possible sampling and non-response error, we can be 95% confident that the true value lies somewhere between 25,322 people and 32,337 people.

12

Table A7. Population Estimates with Confidence Intervals Shown Estimate Lower bound Upper bound Total Jews 28,830 25,322 32,337 Adults 31,556 27,298 35,814 Jewish 25,437 22,270 28,604 Non-Jewish 6,119 4,349 7,889 Children 3,748 2,730 4,766 Jewish 3,392 2,441 4,344 Non-Jewish 314 -56 685 Total people 35,304 30,662 39,946 Total households 17,057 15,155 18,959

9. Analysis

All analyses were completed using statistical software Stata, version 15. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses were restricted to Jewish households (in which at least one adult was Jewish) as well as individual Jewish adults and Jewish children who were specifically identified by respondents as being Jewish. Analyses of characteristics of the entire population were based only on the primary sample with appropriate weights applied. All analyses of subgroups or subsets of the population were conducted using the full sample with appropriate weights applied.

10. Margin of Error Many studies report a margin of error instead of reporting confidence intervals. The margin of error is the 95% confidence interval that would be expected if ALL survey respondents had answered a question; if there were only two response choices; if about half gave each response; and if the survey design had used a simple random sample. Given these conditions, the margin of error is dependent solely on the sample size and population size. Furthermore, the margin of error is only applicable to percentages, not to totals or means. In our sample, with 713 respondents in the primary sample, the margin of error would have been ±3.6% if we had used a simple random sample. Using our stratified random sample design increases the margin of error to about ±7%.

11. Bias and Limitations Every effort to create a representative sample was made in order to prevent bias or, where bias was unavoidable, to identify and reduce it. Nevertheless, some groups are particularly likely to be underrepresented in the sample. Most significant among these are unaffiliated Jews (including new residents and intermarried families) and young adult Jews. Young adult Jews are also likely undercounted for other reasons. Young adults in general are notoriously difficult to reach for telephone surveys, in part due to the increasing rate of cell phone-only households and in part because they tend to move more frequently than older adults; both conditions render young adults harder to track.

13

Newcomers who are not known to the community are very likely undercounted, though they may have appeared on the ethnic names list. Interfaith families may also be underrepresented to the extent that they are unaffiliated and reside in households with directory listings that do not fit the selected ethnic name parameters.

12. Qualitative Coding The survey included open-ended questions about personal experiences with antisemitism, aspects of Jewish life in which respondents or members of their households were unable to participate due to health issues or financial difficulties, the strengths and gaps within the Jewish community, and ideas for which facilities and programs respondents would like to see offered by the Jewish community. Responses were coded by CMJS/SSRI staff and student research assistants, with at least two researchers coding each question. Coders were trained to ensure intercoder reliability, stability, and accuracy. Their worked was reviewed on an ongoing basis for quality control. Difficult cases were marked for review by supervisors. Coding was conducted both deductively and inductively. For each question, coders were given a set of categories to look for in the responses; these categories were based on those used for similar questions from previous studies. However, coders were also instructed to watch for emerging patterns. When a coder believed that a new pattern of responses existed within the data, they reviewed their findings with a supervisor who decided whether the new pattern warranted a new code. When a new code was created, the coders reviewed previously coded entries to check whether the new code would apply to them.

14

Appendix B: Comparison Charts

To download the comparison charts in Microsoft Excel, visit https://www.brandeis.edu/ssri/communitystudies/sarasotareport.html

How to Read the Comparison Charts

The following series of tables provides detailed data that is not found in the primary report. In each section, characteristics are reported for the overall population on the top row, as well as for subgroups of the population, with each subgroup appearing in its own row. All rows are identical throughout the document. Subgroup names appear in the leftmost column of each page.

Each column reports on a characteristic or survey response. Some of these responses refer to households and some refer to individual Jewish adults. Characteristics that refer to Jewish households are indicated by a house symbol (⌂). All other characteristics refer to Jewish adults. For example, whether there are children in the household is a household characteristic; age is an individual characteristic.

The numbers in the table show the proportion of adults or households within a subgroup who have that characteristic. For example, in the table below, 15% of all households have children; 14% of the Personal Jews have children, and 20% of the Holiday Jews have children.

⌂HH

has

Ch

ildre

n

Overall 15%

Minimally Involved 8% Holiday 20%

Personal 14% Communal 17% Immersed 36%

In some cases, all response categories are shown in separate columns. In the case of yes/no responses, the “no” column is not shown. For example, in the table above, the proportion of households who have children is shown; the remainder, who do not have children, is not shown. If 20% of households have children, it can be inferred that 80% do not.

Where areas of the document are solid black, the question was not applicable for the subgroups on those rows. Where areas are colored light gray and numbers appear, there is a statistically significant difference between the subgroups. A double dash “--” indicates that a number cannot

15

https://www.brandeis.edu/ssri/communitystudies/sarasotareport.html

be reported reliably because it is based on fewer than 20 responses. When a percentage is between 0% and 0.5% and would otherwise round down to 0%, the number is denoted as < 1%.

Note that the procedure for generating the subgroup characteristics for these charts is different from that used in the main body of the report. Some minor differences are due to rounding and should be disregarded. Other differences are due to differences in the denominator or base used for the calculation.

Subgroups Used for Comparison Charts

Overall: All Jewish adults or all Jewish households.

Engagement groups: See chapter 3 for an explanation of the engagement groups.

Geography: Individuals or households living in Lakewood Ranch, Longboat Key and nearby Sarasota, the rest of Sarasota County, and the rest of Manatee County. See Figure 2.4 in the main report for more information.

Respondent age: The age of the respondent.

Seasonality: Seasonal residents live in Sarasota-Manatee between 3-8 months of the year. Year-round residents live in the area for 9-12 months of the year.

Marriage type, individual: Unmarried are respondents who are not living with any partner (spouse, fiancé/e, or significant other.) Inmarried are Jewish respondents living with a Jewish partner. Intermarried are Jewish respondents living with a non-Jewish partner.

Marriage type, household: Unmarried are households with no coupled individual. Inmarried are households containing two Jews who are partnered (spouse, fiancé/e, or significant other.) Intermarried are households containing a Jew and non-Jew who are partnered.

16

Demographics

⌂HH

has

chi

ldre

n

⌂HH

is c

oupl

e, n

o ki

ds

⌂HH

is m

ultig

ener

atio

nal a

dults

⌂HH

is si

ngle

adu

lt

⌂HH

is ro

omm

ates

Mal

e

Fem

ale

Overall 15% 40% 12% 33% 0% 48% 52%

Minimally Involved 8% 43% 8% 41%

Demographics

Age

18-4

9

Age

50-6

4

Age

65-7

4

Age

75 +

Gra

duat

ed h

igh

scho

ol, s

ome

colle

ge, a

ssoc

iate

's de

gree

Has B

ache

lor's

deg

ree

Has g

radu

ate

degr

ee

Overall 19% 26% 26% 28% 51% 20% 29%

Minimally Involved 16% 33% 24% 26% 53% 20% 27%Holiday 16% 16% 30% 38% 42% 26% 32%

Personal 30% 24% 27% 19% 45% 20% 34%Communal 6% 16% 26% 52% 22% 29% 49%Immersed 11% 57% 14% 18% 59% 18% 23%

Lakewood Ranch 17% 29% 30% 24% 45% 23% 32%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 9% 31% 31% 29% 21% 36% 42%

Rest of Sarasota County 23% 25% 26% 26% 60% 14% 26%Rest of Manatee County 26% 15% 26% 32% 58% 19% 23%

Resp. age 18-49 67% 15% 19%Resp. age 50-64 53% 21% 26%Resp. age 65-74 47% 23% 30%Resp. age 75 + 40% 21% 39%

Seasonal 3% 18% 33% 46% 16% 39% 45%Year-round 23% 26% 27% 24% 56% 17% 27%

Unmarried 33% 18% 16% 33% 72% 10% 18%Inmarried 9% 24% 39% 28% 34% 30% 37%

Intermarried 28% 36% 17% 19% 60% 13% 27%

18

Demographics

Ort

hodo

x

Cons

erva

tive

Refo

rm

Oth

er d

enom

inat

ion

No

deno

min

atio

n

Overall 2% 24% 46% 2% 27%

Minimally Involved

Demographics

Min

imal

ly In

volv

ed e

ngag

emen

t gr

oup

Holid

ay e

ngag

emen

t gro

up

Pers

onal

eng

agem

ent g

roup

Com

mun

al e

ngag

emen

t gro

up

Imm

erse

d en

gage

men

t gro

up

Inm

arrie

d

Inte

rmar

ried

Unm

arrie

d

Overall 41% 17% 20% 14% 8% 49% 23% 29%

Minimally Involved 29% 39% 32%Holiday 64% 4% 32%

Personal 45% 33% 22%Communal 75% 8% 17%Immersed 83% 10% 7%

Lakewood Ranch 44% 21% 20% 10% 5% 60% 21% 19%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 23% 26% 20% 22% 10% 59% 26% 15%

Rest of Sarasota County 47% 17% 12% 14% 10% 50% 19% 31%Rest of Manatee County 41% 13% 34% 9% 4% 26% 29% 45%

Resp. age 18-49 38% 16% 35% 5% 5% 22% 31% 48%Resp. age 50-64 48% 10% 17% 8% 17% 47% 33% 21%Resp. age 65-74 39% 21% 21% 14% 5% 69% 14% 17%Resp. age 75 + 35% 23% 13% 24% 5% 50% 15% 35%

Seasonal 18% 27% 11% 30% 15% 75% 12% 13%Year-round 44% 17% 21% 11% 7% 44% 24% 32%

Unmarried 50% 23% 17% 9% 2%Inmarried 23% 24% 18% 21% 14%

Intermarried 63% 3% 26% 5% 3%

20

Subpopulations

⌂HH

incl

udes

inte

rfai

th c

oupl

e

⌂HH

incl

udes

Hol

ocau

st

surv

ivor

⌂HH

incl

udes

Rus

sain

spea

ker

⌂HH

incl

udes

Heb

rew

spea

ker

⌂HH

incl

udes

Spa

nish

spea

ker

⌂HH

incl

udes

spea

ker w

ith

othe

r sec

ond

lang

uage

⌂HH

with

seco

nd la

ngua

ge

spea

ker:

lang

uage

was

a b

arrie

r to

par

ticip

atio

n in

Jew

ish li

fe

Overall 18% 2% 10% 11% 2% 47% 3%

Minimally Involved 31%

Jewish Background

Has n

o Je

wish

par

ents

Has 1

Jew

ish p

aren

t

Has 2

Jew

ish p

aren

ts

Raise

d Je

wish

Raise

d Je

wish

+ a

noth

er re

ligio

n

Raise

d in

no

relig

ion

Raise

d in

oth

er re

ligio

n

Atte

nded

Jew

ish sc

hool

dur

ing

K-12

Overall 4% 14% 83% 69% 4% 6% 21% 54%

Minimally Involved

Residence

Seas

onal

Year

-rou

nd

Lake

woo

d Ra

nch

Coas

tal a

reas

/Dow

ntow

n Sa

raso

ta

Rest

of S

aras

ota

Coun

ty

Rest

of M

anat

ee C

ount

y

Overall 16% 84% 11% 20% 50% 19%

Minimally Involved 8% 92% 14% 12% 53% 21%Holiday 24% 76% 14% 30% 41% 14%

Personal 9% 91% 13% 22% 28% 37%Communal 35% 65% 8% 33% 46% 13%Immersed 29% 71% 8% 26% 55% 10%

Lakewood Ranch 8% 92%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 44% 56%

Rest of Sarasota County 8% 92%Rest of Manatee County 8% 92%

Resp. age 18-49 3% 97% 9% 8% 58% 24%Resp. age 50-64 11% 89% 13% 24% 51% 12%Resp. age 65-74 18% 82% 12% 22% 47% 18%Resp. age 75 + 25% 75% 10% 21% 47% 22%

Seasonal 6% 57% 27% 10%Year-round 12% 13% 55% 20%

Unmarried 7% 93% 7% 10% 53% 29%Inmarried 23% 77% 14% 25% 51% 10%

Intermarried 9% 91% 10% 23% 43% 24%

23

Residence

Live

d in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee fo

r 0-

9 ye

ars

Live

d in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee fo

r 10

-19

year

s

Live

d in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee fo

r 20

-29

year

s

Live

d in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee fo

r 30

+ ye

ars

⌂HH

has

chi

ldre

n in

oth

er

Sara

sota

-Man

atee

hou

seho

ld

⌂HH

has

chi

ldre

n in

oth

er

hous

ehol

d ou

tsid

e Sa

raso

ta-

Man

atee

Overall 28% 42% 12% 19% 10% 55%

Minimally Involved 26% 40% 12% 22% 11% 53%Holiday 30% 48% 7% 15% 5% 73%

Personal 29% 44% 21% 6% 14% 55%Communal 39% 33% 16% 12% 11% 69%Immersed 18% 66% 6% 10% 11% 53%

Lakewood Ranch 29% 52% 7% 12% 10% 61%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 24% 43% 12% 21% 10% 67%

Rest of Sarasota County 27% 39% 9% 24% 10% 53%Rest of Manatee County 35% 40% 19% 7% 11% 56%

Resp. age 18-49 34% 46% 9% 11% 2% 7%Resp. age 50-64 22% 46% 12% 20% 7% 50%Resp. age 65-74 41% 24% 8% 27% 10% 66%Resp. age 75 + 17% 52% 16% 14% 17% 78%

Seasonal 34% 43% 14% 10% 1% 87%Year-round 27% 42% 11% 20% 12% 52%

Unmarried 28% 44% 6% 22% 12% 51%Inmarried 34% 36% 13% 17% 7% 71%

Intermarried 16% 49% 16% 18% 12% 51%

24

Residence

⌂HH

has

no

child

ren

in o

ther

ho

useh

old

⌂HH

has

par

ents

in o

ther

Sa

raso

ta-M

anat

ee h

ouse

hold

⌂HH

ow

ns h

ome

⌂HH

has

seco

nd h

ome

⌂ S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

hom

e is

prim

ary

resid

ence

⌂ S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

hom

e is

seas

onal

resid

ence

Overall 35% 20% 84% 23% 57% 36%

Minimally Involved 37% 24% 79% 12% 56% 38%Holiday 22% 45% 93% 35% 76% 24%

Personal 31% 11% 81% 26% 66% 26%Communal 20% 21% 87% 34% 36% 57%Immersed 36% 24% 81% 47% 22% 54%

Lakewood Ranch 29% 18% 68% 8% 73% 27%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 23% 18% 83% 49% 46% 46%

Rest of Sarasota County 37% 30% 85% 18% 65% 25%Rest of Manatee County 34% 17% 86% 14% 72% 28%

Resp. age 18-49 91% 51% 91% 10% -- --Resp. age 50-64 42% 22% 91% 23% 44% 43%Resp. age 65-74 24% 9% 81% 28% 66% 22%Resp. age 75 + 5% -- 75% 23% 57% 43%

Seasonal 12% 12% 85% 100% 42% 51%Year-round 36% 25% 83% 9% 89% 5%

Unmarried 37% 27% 75% 16% 78% 22%Inmarried 22% 22% 86% 31% 39% 49%

Intermarried 38% 21% 91% 24% 64% 30%

25

Residence

⌂ S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

hom

e is

a va

catio

n ho

me

⌂ S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

hom

e is

for

wee

kend

get

away

s

⌂Se

cond

hom

e: p

lans

to

incr

ease

tim

e in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee

⌂Se

cond

hom

e: p

lans

to

decr

ease

tim

e in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee

⌂Se

cond

hom

e: p

lans

no

chan

ge in

tim

e sp

ent i

n Sa

raso

ta-

Man

atee

Overall 6% 2% 38% 4% 58%

Minimally Involved 6% 0% 22% 9% 69%Holiday 0% 0% 39% 4% 57%

Personal 0% 8% 56% 0% 44%Communal 7% 0% 43% 1% 56%Immersed 24% 0% 39% 15% 46%

Lakewood Ranch 0% 0% 37% 0% 63%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 5% 4% 44% 4% 52%

Rest of Sarasota County 9% 0% 45% 7% 48%Rest of Manatee County 0% 0% 12% 5% 83%

Resp. age 18-49 -- -- -- -- --Resp. age 50-64 5% 8% 33% 11% 55%Resp. age 65-74 12% 0% 46% 2% 52%Resp. age 75 + 0% 0% 28% 1% 71%

Seasonal 8% 0% 42% 3% 55%Year-round 0% 6% 32% 9% 59%

Unmarried 0% 0% 54% 11% 35%Inmarried 12% 0% 48% 2% 49%

Intermarried 0% 6% 14% 3% 83%

26

Jewish Education

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

any

Je

wish

edu

catio

n

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

Jew

ish

pre-

scho

ol

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

K-1

2 fo

rmal

Jew

ish e

duca

tion

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

Jew

ish

part

-tim

e sc

hool

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

Jew

ish

day

scho

ol

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

K-1

2 in

form

al Je

wish

edu

catio

n

Overall 32% 27% 9% 8% 6% 35%

Minimally Involved 0% -- -- -- -- --Holiday 7% -- 18% 15% 13% 48%Personal 6% -- 6% -- -- 31%

Communal 13% -- 17% 23%

Jewish Education

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

priv

ate

Jew

ish c

lass

es

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

Jew

ish

day

cam

p

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

Jew

ish

over

nigh

t cam

p

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld in

Jew

ish

yout

h gr

oup

⌂O

f age

-elig

ible

, chi

ld w

ho w

ent

on p

eer t

rip to

Isra

el

Overall 29% 5% 12% 28% 14%

Minimally Involved -- -- -- -- --Holiday 42% 2% 33% -- --Personal 25% 18% 1% -- --

Communal 72% 3% 32% 60% 25%Immersed 71% 14% 35% 68% --

Lakewood Ranch 59% 1% 28% -- --Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 46% 24% 25% 31% 20%

Rest of Sarasota County 25% 3% 10% 36% 11%Rest of Manatee County -- -- -- -- --

Resp. age 18-49 31% 2% 24% 59% 21%Resp. age 50-64 29% 8% 7% 26% 9%Resp. age 65-74Resp. age 75 +

SeasonalYear-round

Unmarried 25% 3% 21% 29% --Inmarried 65% 6% 27% 55% 21%

Intermarried 10% 7% 2% 6% 5%

28

Synagogues

⌂HH

is lo

cal s

ynag

ogue

mem

ber

⌂HH

is o

ut-o

f-are

a sy

nago

gue

mem

ber

⌂HH

is n

ot sy

nago

gue

mem

ber

⌂O

f syn

agog

ue m

embe

rs, 0

lo

cal s

ynag

ogue

s

⌂O

f syn

agog

ue m

embe

rs, 1

lo

cal s

ynag

ogue

⌂O

f syn

agog

ue m

embe

rs,

mul

tiple

loca

l syn

agog

ues

Overall 16% 12% 72% 43% 55% 1%

Minimally Involved

Synagogues

Form

er sy

nago

gue

mem

ber

Form

er sy

nago

gue

mem

ber 0

-4

year

s ago

Form

er sy

nago

gue

mem

ber 5

-9

year

s ago

Form

er sy

nago

gue

mem

ber 1

0+

year

s ago

Form

er sy

nago

gue

mem

ber i

n Sa

raso

ta-M

anat

ee

Nev

er sy

nago

gue

mem

ber

Overall 55% 19% 20% 62% 35% 45%

Minimally Involved 55% 9% 15% 75% 29% 45%Holiday 16% 11% 3% 86% 18% 84%

Personal 32% 30% 18% 52% 33% 68%Communal -- -- -- -- -- --Immersed -- -- -- -- -- --

Lakewood Ranch 35% 18% 10% 73% 37% 65%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 25% 40% 3% 57% 35% 75%

Rest of Sarasota County 49% 22% 22% 56% 41% 51%Rest of Manatee County 59% 7% 24% 69% 20% 41%

Resp. age 18-49 69% 75% 19% 7% 64% 31%Resp. age 50-64 48% 19% 51% 31% 60% 52%Resp. age 65-74 45% 17% 7% 76% 22% 55%Resp. age 75 + 21% 6% 1% 93% 20% 79%

Seasonal 25% 24% 8% 68% 4% 75%Year-round 47% 22% 18% 59% 40% 53%

Unmarried 47% 26% 10% 64% 38% 53%Inmarried 32% 13% 29% 57% 38% 68%

Intermarried 63% 35% 2% 63% 31% 37%

30

Synagogues

Atte

nds s

ervi

ces:

Nev

er

Atte

nds s

ervi

ces:

< M

onth

ly

Atte

nds s

ervi

ces:

Mon

thly

+

Atte

nded

serv

ices

dur

ing

2018

Hi

gh H

oly

Days

⌂Br

ick-

and-

mor

tar s

ynag

ogue

m

embe

r due

s pay

ing

⌂Ch

abad

mem

ber

Overall 38% 45% 18% 43% 12% 2%

Minimally Involved 84% 16% 0%

Synagogues

Feel

com

fort

able

ent

erin

g a

Jew

ish p

lace

of w

orsh

ip: S

tron

gly

disa

gree

Feel

com

fort

able

ent

erin

g a

Jew

ish p

lace

of w

orsh

ip:

Disa

gree

Feel

com

fort

able

ent

erin

g a

Jew

ish p

lace

of w

orsh

ip: N

eutr

al

Feel

com

fort

able

ent

erin

g a

Jew

ish p

lace

of w

orsh

ip: A

gree

Feel

com

fort

able

ent

erin

g a

Jew

ish p

lace

of w

orsh

ip: S

tron

gly

agre

e

Overall 0% 3% 11% 33% 53%

Minimally Involved

Ritual Behaviors

⌂HH

ligh

ts S

habb

at c

andl

es:

Nev

er

⌂HH

ligh

ts S

habb

at c

andl

es:

Som

etim

es

⌂HH

ligh

ts S

habb

at c

andl

es:

Usu

ally

⌂HH

ligh

ts S

habb

at c

andl

es:

Alw

ays

⌂HH

has

Sha

bbat

mea

l: N

ever

⌂HH

has

Sha

bbat

mea

l: So

met

imes

⌂HH

has

Sha

bbat

mea

l: U

sual

ly

⌂HH

has

Sha

bbat

mea

l: Al

way

s

Overall 63% 23% 6% 7% 56% 35% 5% 3%

Minimally Involved 93% 5% 3% 0% 81% 16% 3%

Ritual Behaviors

Fast

ed o

n Yo

m K

ippu

r: Fu

ll da

y

Fast

ed o

n Yo

m K

ippu

r: Pa

rt d

ay

Fast

ed o

n Yo

m K

ippu

r: Co

uld

not

for m

edic

al re

ason

s

Fast

ed o

n Yo

m K

ippu

r: N

o

⌂HH

att

ends

sede

r in

typi

cal

year

⌂HH

ligh

ts H

anuk

kah

cand

les i

n ty

pica

l yea

r

⌂HH

has

mez

uzah

on

door

Overall 39% 12% 17% 32% 68% 72% 64%

Minimally Involved 12% 7% 12% 69% 39% 45% 33%Holiday 63% 12% 10% 15% 85% 95% 91%

Personal 26% 23% 30% 21% 96% 89% 84%Communal 44% 25% 18% 13% 99% 96% 91%Immersed 86% 6% 8% 1% 100% 100% 90%

Lakewood Ranch 41% 12% 19% 28% 78% 59% 49%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 41% 19% 13% 27% 82% 82% 73%

Rest of Sarasota County 45% 10% 11% 33% 58% 74% 63%Rest of Manatee County 26% 10% 22% 42% 69% 66% 63%

Resp. age 18-49 49% 7% 13% 31% 74% 81% 57%Resp. age 50-64 37% 9% 7% 47% 71% 72% 60%Resp. age 65-74 41% 15% 16% 28% 70% 72% 65%Resp. age 75 + 37% 16% 20% 27% 62% 68% 66%

Seasonal 51% 17% 14% 18% 90% 94% 83%Year-round 38% 12% 15% 36% 65% 69% 61%

Unmarried 42% 12% 13% 33% 64% 54% 50%Inmarried 50% 15% 12% 24% 82% 92% 83%

Intermarried 16% 7% 22% 55% 58% 75% 59%

34

Ritual Behaviors

Does

n't k

eep

kosh

er

Follo

ws s

ome

kosh

er ru

les

Keep

s kos

her a

t hom

e

Keep

s kos

her a

lway

s

Overall 74% 18% 3% 4%

Minimally Involved 90% 7% 3% 0%Holiday 95% 5%

Aspects of Being Jewish

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f cu

lture

: Not

at a

ll

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f cu

lture

: A li

ttle

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f cu

lture

: Som

ewha

t

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f cu

lture

: Ver

y m

uch

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f et

hnic

ity: N

ot a

t all

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f et

hnic

ity: A

litt

le

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f et

hnic

ity: S

omew

hat

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f et

hnic

ity: V

ery

muc

h

Overall 1% 5% 23% 71% 6% 7% 19% 67%

Minimally Involved 2% 8% 39% 51% 5% 8% 32% 56%Holiday

Aspects of Being Jewish

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f re

ligio

n: N

ot a

t all

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f re

ligio

n: A

litt

le

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f re

ligio

n: S

omew

hat

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f re

ligio

n: V

ery

muc

h

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f co

mm

unity

: Not

at a

ll

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f co

mm

unity

: A li

ttle

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f co

mm

unity

: Som

ewha

t

Bein

g Je

wish

is a

mat

ter o

f co

mm

unity

: Ver

y m

uch

Overall 9% 14% 22% 56% 7% 10% 31% 51%

Minimally Involved 25% 28% 15% 32% 15% 17% 43% 25%Holiday 3% 15% 13% 69% 2% 7% 18% 73%Personal 1% 8% 24% 67% 6% 2% 32% 60%

Communal 1% 2% 17% 81%

Aspects of Being Jewish

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns w

orki

ng fo

r ju

stic

e &

equ

ality

in so

ciet

y:

Esse

ntia

l

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns w

orki

ng fo

r ju

stic

e &

equ

ality

in so

ciet

y:

Impo

rtan

t, no

t ess

entia

l

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns w

orki

ng fo

r ju

stic

e &

equ

ality

in so

ciet

y: N

ot

impo

rtan

t

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns le

adin

g an

et

hica

l & m

oral

life

: Ess

entia

l

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns le

adin

g an

et

hica

l & m

oral

life

: Im

port

ant,

not e

ssen

tial

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns le

adin

g an

et

hica

l & m

oral

life

: Not

im

port

ant

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns b

eing

par

t of

a Je

wish

com

mun

ity: E

ssen

tial

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns b

eing

par

t of

a Je

wish

com

mun

ity:

Impo

rtan

t, no

t ess

entia

l

Bein

g Je

wish

mea

ns b

eing

par

t of

a Je

wish

com

mun

ity: N

ot

impo

rtan

t

Overall 59% 36% 4% 81% 18% 2% 28% 52% 20%

Minimally Involved 62% 29% 9% 77% 18% 5% 9% 58% 33%Holiday 62% 32% 6% 83% 16% 1% 36% 61% 3%Personal 55% 43% 2% 82% 18%

Antisemitism

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in th

e U

S: N

ot a

t all

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in th

e U

S: A

litt

le

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in th

e U

S: S

omew

hat

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in th

e U

S: V

ery

muc

h

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

: Not

at a

ll

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

: A li

ttle

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

: Som

ewha

t

Conc

erne

d ab

out a

ntise

miti

sm

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

: Ver

y m

uch

Pers

onal

ly e

xper

ienc

ed

antis

emiti

sm in

the

past

thre

e ye

ars

Overall 1% 6% 14% 79% 14% 21% 25% 40% 27%

Minimally Involved 3% 5% 19% 73% 13% 31% 26% 29% 27%Holiday 1% 5% 14% 80% 12% 26% 31% 31% 7%Personal 0% 2% 15% 83% 11% 10% 26% 53% 32%

Communal

Community Connections

Non

e of

my

clos

est f

riend

s are

Je

wish

Som

e of

my

clos

est f

riend

s are

Je

wish

Abou

t hal

f of m

y cl

oses

t frie

nds

are

Jew

ish

Mos

t of m

y cl

oses

t frie

nds a

re

Jew

ish

All o

f my

clos

est f

riend

s are

Je

wish

Overall 11% 38% 16% 34% 1%

Minimally Involved 12% 57% 10% 21%

Community Connections

Feel

like

par

t of w

orld

wid

e Je

wish

com

mun

ity: N

ot a

t all

Feel

like

par

t of w

orld

wid

e Je

wish

com

mun

ity: A

litt

le

Feel

like

par

t of w

orld

wid

e Je

wish

com

mun

ity: S

omew

hat

Feel

like

par

t of w

orld

wid

e Je

wish

com

mun

ity: V

ery

muc

h

Feel

like

par

t of S

arao

sta-

Man

atee

Jew

ish c

omm

unity

: Not

at

all

Feel

like

par

t of S

arao

sta-

Man

atee

Jew

ish c

omm

unity

: A

little

Feel

like

par

t of S

arao

sta-

Man

atee

Jew

ish c

omm

unity

: So

mew

hat

Feel

like

par

t of S

arao

sta-

Man

atee

Jew

ish c

omm

unity

: Ve

ry m

uch

Overall 12% 21% 37% 30% 40% 22% 27% 11%

Minimally Involved 17% 42% 26% 15% 61% 29% 10% 0%Holiday 14% 16% 40% 29% 21% 28% 30% 21%

Personal 1% 18% 25% 57% 33% 27% 29% 11%Communal

Community Connections

Feel

like

par

t of t

he Je

wish

co

mm

unity

whe

re I

have

my

seco

nd h

ome:

Not

at a

ll

Feel

like

par

t of t

he Je

wish

co

mm

unity

whe

re I

have

my

seco

nd h

ome:

A li

ttle

Feel

like

par

t of t

he Je

wish

co

mm

unity

whe

re I

have

my

seco

nd h

ome:

Som

ewha

t

Feel

like

par

t of t

he Je

wish

co

mm

unity

whe

re I

have

my

seco

nd h

ome:

Ver

y m

uch

Feel

like

bei

ng Je

wish

is p

art o

f da

ily li

fe: N

ot a

t all

Feel

like

bei

ng Je

wish

is p

art o

f da

ily li

fe: A

litt

le

Feel

like

bei

ng Je

wish

is p

art o

f da

ily li

fe: S

omew

hat

Feel

like

bei

ng Je

wish

is p

art o

f da

ily li

fe: V

ery

muc

h

Overall 18% 17% 26% 40% 13% 22% 30% 35%

Minimally Involved 53% 21% 25% 2% 24% 37% 29% 10%Holiday 4% 19% 7% 70% 17% 22% 25% 36%

Personal 32% 18% 37% 13%

Community Connections

Stro

ng se

nse

of b

elon

ging

to th

e Je

wish

peo

ple:

Str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee

Stro

ng se

nse

of b

elon

ging

to th

e Je

wish

peo

ple:

Disa

gree

Stro

ng se

nse

of b

elon

ging

to th

e Je

wish

peo

ple:

Neu

tral

Stro

ng se

nse

of b

elon

ging

to th

e Je

wish

peo

ple:

Agr

ee

Stro

ng se

nse

of b

elon

ging

to th

e Je

wish

peo

ple:

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Feel

con

nect

ed to

oth

er Je

wish

pe

ole

even

if d

on't

know

them

pe

rson

ally

: Str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee

Feel

con

nect

ed to

oth

er Je

wish

pe

ole

even

if d

on't

know

them

pe

rson

ally

: Disa

gree

Feel

con

nect

ed to

oth

er Je

wish

pe

ole

even

if d

on't

know

them

pe

rson

ally

: Neu

tral

Overall 1% 2% 11% 36% 50% 3% 3% 11%

Minimally Involved 2% 6% 19% 54% 20% 3% 8% 20%Holiday 1%

Community Connections

Feel

con

nect

ed to

oth

er Je

wish

pe

ole

even

if d

on't

know

them

pe

rson

ally

: Agr

ee

Feel

con

nect

ed to

oth

er Je

wish

pe

ole

even

if d

on't

know

them

pe

rson

ally

: Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Feel

resp

onsib

ility

to ta

ke c

are

of Je

ws i

n ne

ed w

here

ver t

hey

live:

Str

ongl

y di

sagr

ee

Feel

resp

onsib

ility

to ta

ke c

are

of Je

ws i

n ne

ed w

here

ver t

hey

live:

Disa

gree

Feel

resp

onsib

ility

to ta

ke c

are

of Je

ws i

n ne

ed w

here

ver t

hey

live:

Neu

tral

Feel

resp

onsib

ility

to ta

ke c

are

of Je

ws i

n ne

ed w

here

ver t

hey

live:

Agr

ee

Feel

resp

onsib

ility

to ta

ke c

are

of Je

ws i

n ne

ed w

here

ver t

hey

live:

Str

ongl

y ag

ree

Overall 52% 31% < 1% 3% 28% 41% 28%

Minimally Involved 60% 10% 2% 8% 38% 43% 9%Holiday 53% 28%

Interfaith Families

Amon

g in

term

arrie

d, Je

wish

co

mm

unity

is w

elco

min

g to

in

terf

aith

fam

ilies

: Not

at a

ll

Amon

g in

term

arrie

d, Je

wish

co

mm

unity

is w

elco

min

g to

in

terf

aith

fam

ilies

: A li

ttle

Amon

g in

term

arrie

d, Je

wish

co

mm

unity

is w

elco

min

g to

in

terf

aith

fam

ilies

: Som

ewha

t

Amon

g in

term

arrie

d, Je

wish

co

mm

unity

is w

elco

min

g to

in

terf

aith

fam

ilies

: Ver

y m

uch

Amon

g in

term

arrie

d, Je

wish

co

mm

unity

is w

elco

min

g to

in

terf

aith

fam

ilies

: No

Opi

nion

Overall 3% 7% 33% 18% 39%

Minimally Involved 2% 6% 29% 16% 47%Holiday 0% 6% 18% 30% 46%

Personal 14% 2% 36% 22% 25%Communal 0% 1% 29% 49% 21%Immersed -- -- -- -- --

Lakewood Ranch 1% 19% 9% 33% 38%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 20% 7% 19% 26% 28%

Rest of Sarasota County 2% 3% 30% 19% 46%Rest of Manatee County 3% 2% 52% 8% 35%

Resp. age 18-49

Israel

Been

to Is

rael

: Nev

er

Been

to Is

rael

: Onc

e

Been

to Is

rael

: Mul

tiple

tim

es

Been

to Is

rael

: Liv

ed

ther

e/Is

rael

i citi

zen

Been

to Is

rael

on

Birt

hrig

ht

Isra

el (a

mon

g ag

e-el

igib

le)

Been

to Is

rael

on

educ

atio

n/vo

lunt

eer t

rip

Been

to Is

rael

on

trip

spon

sore

d by

Jew

ish o

rgan

izatio

n

Been

to Is

rael

on

a bu

sines

s trip

Been

to Is

rael

on

a lo

ng-t

erm

pr

ogra

m (6

wee

ks o

r mor

e)

Overall 44% 28% 19% 8% 11% 6% 20% 4% 6%

Minimally Involved 66% 18% 12% 4% 14% 2% 10% 6% 1%Holiday 42% 25% 29% 4% 11% 5% 25% 1% 4%Personal 35% 45% 15% 4% -- 8% 17% 2% 9%

Communal 16% 51% 29% 5% 12% 15% 32% 8% 9%Immersed 29% 14% 45% 12% 4% 14% 20% 5% 25%

Lakewood Ranch 50% 30% 15% 5% -- 4% 12% 2% 8%Coastal areas/Downtown Sarasota 19% 39% 42% 1% 2% 13% 31% 5% 10%

Rest of Sarasota County 52% 20% 13% 15% 3% 5% 15% 5% 4%Rest of Manatee County 46% 39% 14% 2% 32% 3% 19% 2% 4%

Resp. age 18-49 58% 30% 9% 3% 5% 19% 1% 8%Resp. age 50-64 49% 22% 24% 4% 7% 9% 5% 9%Resp. age 65-74 28% 33% 18% 21% 5% 18% 4% 4%Resp. age 75 + 45% 30% 20% 5% 5% 25% 5% 1%

Seasonal 18% 29% 52% 1% -- 9% 45% 6% 4%Year-round 49% 28% 13% 10% 12% 5% 14% 4% 6%

Unmarried 50% 34% 11% 5% 17% 4% 27% 1% 3%Inmarried 31% 29% 26% 14% 8% 8% 19% 3% 7%

Intermarried 65% 21% 13% 1% 1% 4% 6% 9% 5%

46

Israel

Rela

tives

in Is

rael

Frie

nds i

n Is

rael

Both

rela

tives

and

frie

nds i

n Is

rael

Nei

ther

rela

tives

nor

frie

nds i

n Is

rael

In p

ast m

onth

, sou

ght o

ut n

ews

abou

t Isr

ael:

Nev

er

In p

ast m

onth

, sou

ght o

ut n

ews

abou

t Isr

ael:

Onc

e or

twic

e

In p

ast m

onth

, sou

ght o

ut n

ews

abou

t Isr

ael:

Wee

kly

In p

ast m

onth

, sou

ght o

ut n

ews

abou

t Isr

ael:

< Da

ily

In p

ast m

onth

, sou

ght o

ut n

ews

abou

t Isr

ael:

Daily

+

Overall 21% 14% 11% 53% 23% 31% 11% 16% 19%

Minimally Involved 29% 6% 5% 60% 35% 36% 12% 9% 7%Holiday 15% 10% 2% 73% 33% 35% 9% 12% 11%Personal 26% 27% 9% 38% 4% 27% 6% 39% 23%

Communal 41% 16% 6% 37% 14% 24% 24% 20% 18%Immersed 19% 16% 29% 36%

Israel

Feel

a c

onne

ctio

n to

Isra

el: N

ot

at a

ll

Feel

a c

onne

ctio

n to

Isra

el: A

lit

tle

Feel

a c

onne

ctio

n to

Isra

el:

Som

ewha

t

Feel

a c

onne

ctio

n to

Isra

el: V

ery

muc

h

Read

ing

Hebr

ew: D

on't

know

th

e al

phae

bt

Read

ing

Hebr

ew: C

an re

ad th

e le

tter

s but

don

't un

ders

tand

Read

ing

Hebr

ew: U

nder

stan

d so

me

of w

hat I

read

Read

ing

Hebr

ew: U

nder

stan

d m

ost o

f wha

t I re

ad

Read

ing

Hebr

ew: U

nder

stan

d ev

eryt

hing

I re

ad

Overall 11% 21% 28% 40% 39% 27% 23% 9% 2%

Minimally Involved 20% 33% 25% 22% 60% 20% 16% 3%

Organizations

⌂HH

pai

d du

es to

Jew

ish

orga

niza

tion

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

, asid

e fr

om a

sy

nago

gue

⌂HH

pay

s due

s to

Bran

deis

Nat

iona

l Com

mitt

ee

⌂HH

pay

s due

s to

ORT

⌂HH

pay

s due

s to

Hada

ssah

⌂HH

pay

s due

s to

othe

r Sa

raso

ta-M

anat

ee Je

wish

or

gani

zatio

n

⌂HH

pay

s due

s to

Jew

ish

orga

niza

tion

in o

ther

hom

e co

mm

unity

⌂HH

bel

ongs

to Je

wish

gro

up in

Sa

raso

ta-M

anat

ee

⌂HH

bel

ongs

to Je

wish

gro

up in

ot

her h

ome

com

mun

ity

⌂HH

, in

past

yea

r, at

tend

ed a

pr

ogra

m ru

n by

Cha

bad

in

Sara

sota

-Man

atee

⌂HH

, in

past

yea

r, at

tend

ed a

pr

ogra

m ru

n by

Cha

bad

outs

ide

Sara

sota

-Man

atee

⌂HH

, in

past

yea

r, at

tend

ed a

pr

ogra

m ru

n by

Cha

bad

both

in

and

outs

ide

Sara

sota

-Man

atee

Overall 19% 2% 2% 3% 12% 55% 10% 16% 14% 6% 1%

Minimally Involved 5%

Organizations

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am, e

vent

, or

cla

ss in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee: A

t le

ast m

onth

ly

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am, e

vent

, or

cla

ss in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee: <

M

onth

ly

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am, e

vent

, or

cla

ss in

Sar

asot

a-M

anat

ee:

Nev

er

Read

mat

eria

l pro

duce

d by

Je

wish

org

aniza

tion

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

: At l

east

mon

thly

Read

mat

eria

l pro

duce

d by

Je

wish

org

aniza

tion

in S

aras

pta-

Man

atee

: < M

onth

ly

Read

mat

eria

l pro

duce

d by

Je

wish

org

aniza

tion

in S

aras

ota-

Man

atee

: Nev

er

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am o

r ac

tivity

at t

he Je

wish

Fed

erat

ion

of S

M: A

t lea

st m

onth

ly

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am o

r ac

tivity

at t

he Je

wish

Fed

erat

ion

of S

M: <

Mon

thly

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am o

r ac

tivity

at t

he Je

wish

Fed

erat

ion

of S

M: N

ever

Atte

nded

Jew

ish p

rogr

am, e

vent

, or