COMMUNITY PRIORITIES SYSTEM

REPORT NUMBER 4

',.

JEWISH AFFILIATION PLANNING. REPORT

Prepared by STEVEN HUBERMAN, Ph.D.

SPRING, 1984

JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF PLANNING AND BUDGETING DEPARH1ENT SAUL ANDRON, Ph.D., CO-DIRECTOR STEVEN HUBERMAN, Ph.D., CO-DIRECTOR' COMMUNITY PRIORITIES SYSTE~1

Report Number 1 Southern Region Planning Report Report Number 2 Elderly Planning Report Report Number 3 Regional Needs Survey Report Number 4 Synagogue Affiliation Planning Report Report Number 5 Community Priorities Committee Report

Cover photo by Bill Aron - The Breed Street Shul - Constructed in 1922 and formally dedicated in 1923. it is one of the oldest in Los Angeles and the major synagogue remaining in the old Boyle-Heights Jewish neighborhood. The shul is a major Los Angeles Jewish landmark and was featured in both the 1927 and 1980 versions of The Jazz S1ngek.

Copyright @ 1984 Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. CONTENTS

Ackno\'Jledgments ." ~"" 11:"" ,'.""""",,.,," '" t .•.•. t." '"'.".""""".".",,.,,""" 1

Summary of Findings and Conclusions ...... 3

Jewish Federation Council Synagogue Affiliation Report ••••• 8 Overall Patterns Branch of Age, Sex, Marital Status Soci o-Economi cs Jewish Communal Involvement

Summary and Implications ... ti •••• " ...... " •••••.••.••••••••• 20

Notes ...... "' •••. " ...... " •.••••..•••. , 28

List of Regional Communities .. , •. "...... 11: ••••••.•••••• 33

Appendix of Statistical Tables •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 34 JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL OF GREATER LOS ANGELES Osias Goren, President Ilene Olansky, Chair, Planning & Budgeting· Committee Ted Kanner, Executive Vice President Merv Lemmerman, Executive Director

RESEARCH COMMITTEE Rita Chotiner, Chair Lewis Blumberg Dr. Elliot N. Dorff Benjamin Dwoskin Dr. Howa rd Freema n Dr. Lilli Friedland Dr. Michael Goldstein Abner Goldstine Marcie Greenberg Dr. Maurice Hamovitch Ira Moskatel Daniel Polish Dr. Madeleine Stoner Dr. ~lartin 1. Taft -1-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the fourth to be issued as part of the Los Angeles Jewish Federation Council's Community Priorities System (CPS). CPS will i denti fy the most important probl ems faci ng the Jewish community of Los Angeles. It includes demographic reports; regional needs surveys con­

ducted in the five F~deration regions; and specialized studies on major community issues, such as this study on synagogue affiliation. A major goal of CPS has been to develop a listing of priorities for funding. This Synagogue Affiliation Planning Report is based on demographic data collected in the 1979 Los Angeles Jewish Population Study, an up­ dating conducted in 1981, and a 1983 data reanalysis. We hope this re­ port will provide useful information for planners to focus on ways to promote synagogue affiliation. CPS is being funded by the Jewish Community Foundation of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles. The project is being carried out with the lay and professional support of the Federation. Special thanks go to the Federation's Ted Kanner, Merv Lemmerman, Ilene Olansky and Benjamin Dwoskin for their commitment to the production of "action research." Bill Korn of UCLA provided invaluable computer help in this project. Marum Rieger of the Federation's Planning &Budgeting Depart­ ment did an excellent job of editing and preparing the preliminary and final manuscripts and statistical material. The following persons re­ viewed the report and made many valuable suggestions: Merv Lemmerman, -2-

Dr. Saul Andron, Rabbi Paul Dubin, Rita Chotiner, Rabbi Daniel Pol ish, and Ilene Olansky. Dr. Bruce Phillips of Hebre\~ Union College designed and directed the 1979 study. -3-

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

OVERALL PATTERNS OF AFFILIATION Only 26% of Jewish adults in Los Angeles, with a Jewish population of over 500,000, presently belong to a synagogue. A full 40% do not present­ ly belong but did so in the past. One in three has never affiliated with a congregation. There are approximately the same number of Jews affiliated today as. there were in 1968. Affiliation is at its highest in Beverly Hills, v/ith a 54% rate, and lowest in Venice-Mar Vista-Culver City communities, with a 10% affiliation rate.

BRANCH OF JUDAISM Today, 77% of Jews in Greater Los Angeles express a branch preference, as compared to 62% in 1968. The overwhelming majority of the adult Jewish population (70%) align with Reform, Conservative, or . Within this group, 34% are Reform, 30% Conservative, and 6% Orthodox. Con­ trasting this data with those of 1968, the Orthodox share of the Jewish population has remained stable at 6%; there has been a slight drawing away from Conservative Jewry (32% membership in 1968 compared to 30% today); and the percentage of Reform Jews has substantially increased to 34% in 1983 from 22% in 1968. There has also been an increase from 2% in 1968 to 7% in 1983 of the number of Jews who identify with other ideologies within Judaism, such as Reconstructionist or Sephardic Judaism. Among those who identify as Orthodox and Conservative Jews, between 42%-44%.join synagogues, while 24% - -4- of those who identify as Reform do so. A full 23% of Jews identify them­ selves as· "just Jewish" and have no ideological preference. Ninety-two percent of those who consider themselves "just Jewish" do not affiliate with a synagogue.

AGE, SEX Today, among Jews 65 or over, 16% are Orthodox; of those between the ages of 20-29, 6% are Orthodox. Of those 65 and over, 32% are Conservative, whereas among those in the 20-29 age group 22% are Conservative. Reform .Jews represent 33% of persons aged 20-29 and 28% of those 65 and over. Among single, never-married, and divorced persons, approximately 15% are af­ filiated. Sixteen percent of Jews in their 20's become involved in congre­ gations. Twenty-eight percent of females belong to congregations as com­ pared to 22% of males.

MARITAL STATUS There are three distinctive types of marriages - in-marriage (between two born Jews); conversionary marriage (between a born and a born non­ Jew who has converted to Judaism); and intermarriage (between a born Jew and a born non-Jew who has not converted). Today, 76% of Jews are in­ married, 5% married to converts, and 19% intermarrjed. In 1968 only 5% of Jews were intermarried. Jews married to born Jews and to converts, have a synagogue affiliation rate of 38%. Comparatively few intermarried Jews -5-

(4%) belong to a synagoglje. Marriage and the presence of children are major catalysts to synagogue affiliation. Thirty-one percent of intact married couples areaffil iated, 64% of fami1 ies with three or more children are synagogue members. The peak of affiliation for parents occurs when their children approach Bar/Bat and Confirmation. By that time parents are generally 40 or over and have a 46% affiliation rate. After the school phase, there is a decline in membership. Only

28% of married Jews over the a~e of 65 maintain their synagogue member­ ship.

SOCIO ECONOMICS Eighteen percent of Jews living in Los Angeles have lived here nine years or less. Only 15% of these Jewish newcomers join a synagogue. Community participation increases after approximately five years of resi­ dence. Forty-eight percent of those who are involved .in Jewish organiza­ tional activity also become active in a synagogue. The occupational group which is most affiliated with a synagogue is managers and proprie­ tors (28%); followed by sales (25%); professional (24%); clerical (21%); and blue collar (17%). The income factor plays an important role in syna­ gogue affiliation. As income rises so does the extent of participation. Families earning under $30,000 have an affiliation rate of between 18-24%; those earning $60,000 or more have an affiliation rate of 49%. -6-

JEWISH EDUCATION Synagogue affiliation is partially determined by years of Jewish educa­ tion. Adults who have had less than seven years of Jewish schooling have a synagogue affil iation rate of 25% or less. Among adults with seven or more years of Jewish education, the 'participation rate increases to 37-50%. The impact of coming from a Jewishly identified home is comparable to theef­ fects of years of Jewish school instruction. Persons raised in strongly identified Jewish famil ies and who have had seven or more years of Jewish education are the most likely to affiliate with a synagogue.

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP Involvement in one area of Jewish communal activity invariably spills over to other areas of participation. The factor most strongly associated with affiliating with a synagogue is an individual's affiliation with one or more other Jewish organizations. Forty-eight percent of persons who be­ long to a Jewish organization -- educational, cultural, community relations, or social welfare -- also affiliate with a synagogue. Among those persons who do not belong to any Jewish organization, only 19% affiliate with a synagogue. A most powerful affiliation influence is that both spouses are born Jewish. The other important correlates are the self-identification of being Conservative or Orthodox. Between 42-44% of Conservative and Ortho­ dox Jews belong as compared to 24% of Reform and 7% of those who express no branch preference. Another positive influence is the presence of child­ ren in the household. Length of residence and household income are also -7- positive influences. Long time residents and persons at the middle and upper ends of the income spectrum form a large portion of the affiliated. At the opposite end of the spectrum, among the negative influences to not joining a synagogue are: (1) that individuals are single, never married, divorced, or widowed; (2) change of residence -- the family moves out of the community; (3) ~there are no longer school age children in the house­ hold; (4) membership dues are perceived as being too high. Apathy accounts for 15% of synagogue dropouts. -8-

JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION REPORT

----~ ~9-

JEWISH FEDERATION COUNCIL SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION REPORT

Affiliation with the Jewish community can take a variety of forms. It may involve contributing to the Jewish federation, belonging to Jewish organizations, participating in· the activities of Jewish agencies, or joining·a synagogue. The focus of this study is congregational affi~

1iation ~- formally belonging to a synagogue. This type of affiliation reveals a great deal about the intensity of Jewish life in a community.l Although there has been an enormous increase in demographic research on Jews in the past decade, we know very little about who are the "unaf­ filiated." A major goal of this study is to identify the factors asso­ ciated with affil iation and non~affi1 iation. By expanding our under~ standing of these population groups, we can more'effective1y plan strate­ gies to attract the unaffiliated into organized Jewish activity.

The findings in this report are based on the Los Angeles Jewish Popu~

1ation Study, a random telephone survey which included 823 completed in~ terviews with Jewish households, a population survey updating, and recent literature on affiliation. The major focus of the research was demo~ graphic -- measuring the size, composition, and distribution of the more than 500,000 Jewish residents of Greater Los Angeles. Synagogue, organi­ zationa1, and philanthropic participation \~ere a1 so studied. At approxi­ mately the same time the Jewish Federation Council was carrying out this project, the University of Judaism conducted a study on Jewish identifica~ tion among 413 randomly selected respondents. Since there was considerable

Note: All tables appear in the Appendix -10-

s imil arity between these t\~O research studies, several of the fi ndings from the University of Judaism inquiry are included in our analysis.2

OVERALL PATTERNS In our study we asked the respondents, "Do you, or does anyone else in your household, belong to a synagogue?" If the answer was "yes" we defined the person(s) as "affiliated" with a synagogue. Using this de­ finition, there is a very low rate of congregational affiliation. Only 26% of Jewish adults presently belong to a synagogue (Table 1). There has also been a significant erosion in synagogue membership. A full 40% of past members no longer affil iate. One in three Jev/s has never been affiliated with a congregation. It is instructive to cnart changes in Jewish observance over a period of time. In 1968, 27% of the were affiliated. Thus, there are approximately the same number of Jews affil iated today as com­ pared to fifteen years ago. 3 Whereas synagogue affiliation seems to have stabilized at about 1 in 4 Jews, other forms of Jevlish religious practice have declined to even lower levels. For example, in the University of Judaism sample, today only 7% of Jews report keeping kosher; only 12% attend services, and only 18% regularly light shabbat candles. In contrast, religious practices which require less frequency are more widely observed: 50% of Je\~s fast on Yom Kippur, 66% attend a Passover seder, and a majority possess prayer books, mezuzot, and chanukah menorot. Most Jews own religious symbols, but many do not engage in active reli­ gious observance. 4 -11-

Los Angeles has a variegated network of synagogues. There are synago­

gues of every ideology -- ranging from large, old, well-established t~mp1es to traditional Chassidic shtib1ach. There are independent minyanim, which serve as alternatives for those seeking religious expression outside of conventional institutions. The independent lifestyle has led some congregations to experiment in liturgy. In contrast, one can walk in­ to some synagogues in Los Angeles and see bearded, caftaned young engaged in kaba11istic meditation. This 11ide diversity in synagogue style . is paralleled by varying levels of community affiliation. Affiliation is at its highest in Beverly Hills with a 54% rate, and lowest in Venice-Mar Vista-Culver City communities with a 10% affiliation rate (Table 2).5

BRANCH OF JUDAISM Religiosity involves a number of components. Social scientists have isolated four dimensions of religious identification -- ideological, ritua­ listic, organizational, and cu1tura1. 6 Our study focused on the ideologi­ cal dimension -- self-identification with a particular branch of Judaism - and the organizational dimension -- affiliation with a particular synagogue. We measured identification with the religious ideologies by asking persons

with ~Ihat branch of Judaism they were, a1 igned. The overwhelming majority (70%) of the adult Jewish population align with Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Judaism (Table 3). Within this breakdown, the most widespread identification is today with Reform (34%) and (30%), -12-

followed by Orthodoxy (6%). It is useful to contrast this pattern with data collected among the Jews of Los Angeles in 1968.

PREFERENCE FOR BRANCH OF JUDAISM FOR ALL JEVlISH ADULTS

YEAR ORTHODOX CONSERVATIVE REFORM OTHER NO PREFERENCE Today* 6% 30% 34% 7% 23% 1968 6% 32% 22% 2% 38%

*For respondent only

The fact that so many Jews continue to identify with one of the three main religious branches confirms the strength of the three movements. Some Jews, albeit a distinct minority, choose other ideologies within Judaism such as Reconstructionist or Sephardic Judaism. Important shifts are taking place. Hhereas adherents to Orthodox and Conservative Judaism have main­ tained almost the same proportion over the years studied, has grown. Generational and age related shifts are taking place. The propor­ tion of Jews today identifying as Orthodox is 16% among persons 65 or older and 6% among persons aged 20 to 29. Conservative adherence ranges from 32% among persons aged 65 and over to 22% among the 20 to 29 age category. Re­ form Jews represent 33% of the 20-29 age group and 28% of the group over age 65 (Table 3). -13-

Although ideological identification is significant, the second compo~ nent of religiosity -- actual synagogue membership -- more accurately re­ flects the strength of one's commitment to his ideology. Our data indi­ cate that self-identified Orthodox and Conservative Jews are more likely than Reform adherents to affiliate. Almost 50% of Orthodox and Conserva­ tive Jews join a synagogue; approximately 1 in 4 Reform Jews do so (Table 4) • During the past 15 years, there has been an increase in those who ex­ press denominational preference. In 1968 62% of Jews indicated a self­ identification with one of the brariches of Judaism; today 77% express a branch preference. Although more people are aligning themselves with a particular branch, a full 23% continue to identify themselves as "just Jewish" and have no ideological preference. It is these persons who are least likely to join a synagogue. Ninety-two percent of those who con­ sider themselves "just Jewish" do not affiliate with a synagogue (Table 4).

AGE, SEX, MARITAL STATUS We now turn to those demographic factors which are associated I'lith af­ filiation. Very few Jews in their twenties become involved in congregations (16%). Until the age of at least 30, young adults are completing their edu­ cation, starting a career, and establishing roots in some locality. During this transitional phase, it is unl ikely that one will make a more permanent institutional commitment such as affiliating with a synagogue •.This gene­ ral lack of communal involvement holds for both males and females (Tables 5 -14- and 6), though there is a slightly higher rate of synagogue affiliation for females (28%) compared to males (22%), Marriage and the presence of children are major catalysts to communal affiliation. Among single, never married, and divorced persons, approxi­ mately 15% are affiliated. Intact married couples report an affiliation rate of 31%. Hhile 20% of Jews with no children are affiliated, 64% of families with 3 or more children are synagogue members (Tables 7 and 8). Family life cycle is an important determinant of affiliation. Most couples wait until their children are of school age before they affiliate with a synagogue. During the pre-school phase, the low rate of affil ia­ tion is generally not due to economic problems. Other studies confirm that less affluent families at this stage are as unaffiliated as more af­ fluent families. At this juncture, only the more religiously observant are likely to affiliate. It appears that the main reason for delay is that children are not old enough to be enrolled in religious school. 7 The peak affiliation phase occurs when children approach Bar/Bat Mitz­ vah and Confirmation. By that time parents are generally aged 40 or over and have a 46% affiliation rate (Table 9). Synagogue affiliation at this point symbol izes an intensified interest in Jevlish 1ife. Famil ies wish to expose their children to Jewish education and provide them with a Jewish identity. The child is, therefore, seen as a major 1ink to the rel igious institution. As a consequence, many parents base their evaluation of the synagogue on the quality of the school and its youth activities. -15-

During the post-school phase, there is a decline in membership. For example, only 27-28% of Jews over the age of 65 maintain their synagogue affil iation. They no longer have a child-oriented interest in membership. Sustained affiliation is now a reflection of the synagogue serving not only religious but social and cultural needs. There is an important variation in the influence of marital status on ideology and affiliation. The variation is affected by the religion of the spouse (Tables 10 and 11). In our analysis, we make a distinction among three types of marriages -- in-marriage, conversionary marriage, and intermarriage. An "in-marriage" is between two persons born Jewish; a "conversionary marriage" is between a born Jew and a convert to Judaism;

and an "intermarriage" is between a born Jew and a born non-Je~1 who has not converted to Judaism. Among Jews currently married, 76% are married to born Jews (in-marriage); 5% are married to converts to Judaism (conver­ sionary marriage); and 19% are married to non-Jews (intermarriage). In 1968 only 5% of married Jews were intermarried. In a recent national study coordinated by the American JeWish Committee, it was found that on virtually every index of Jewish attitude and practice, • intermarried couples scored low. Intermarried couples may affirm some tie to Jewishness but generally do not act on that affirmation.8 Our study sub­ stantiated that observation. Jews married to born Jews and to converts to Judaism have a synagogue affil iation rate of 38%. In contrast, hardly any intermarried Jews in Los Angeles (4%) belong to synagogues. This is a sig- -16-

nificant finding since participation in synagogue life exerts a profound influence on the religio-ethnic identity of young children and their parents. Intermarried couples and their children are not taking advan­ tage of this important identity-shaping institution. We should, however, note that intermarried couples are not always welcomed with open arms into congregations.

SOCIO-ECONOMICS The impact of geographic mobility on Jewish community participation was a subject of our research. This issue is of interest since one in five Jews have lived in Los Angeles nine years or less (Table 12). Jewish newcomers to the city seem to have a low level of voluntary organizational membership. Only 15% of the Je\~ish newcomers express their community ties through membership in synagogues and temples. Movement to a new city dis­ rupts Jewish communal loyalties. New families and individuals generally fail to identify with the religio-ethnic life of the community. Our re­ search suggests that recent migrants to Los Angeles are less active in formal Jewish structures than are long-time residents. The city from which one has migrated has a moderate impact on one's affiliation rate in the city to which one has moved (Tables 13 and 14). Sociological studies have shown that community participation increases in time. It usually takes at least five years for persons to become fully integrated into the socio-economic and religious life of the new community. -17-

However, recent newcomers to Los Angeles may not be as will ing as migrants from the previous generation to participate in community affairs. In to­ day's society, people are more inclined to relocate, especially due to economic circumstances and vocational factors. People also fee1,less anchored to their families and kin. Consequently, migrants may feel that Los Angeles is not likely to be their permanent place 'of residence. Such persons may identify with Judaism, but may feel that they vlill not remain in Los Angeles long enough to justify the financial and emotional invest­ ment of affiliating with a synagogue. 9 Repeated geographic movement erodes one's ties to JUdaism and the Jewish community. However, there appears to be an exception to this rule. Research has found that those persons who were strongly 'involved in Jewish life in their former community continue their involvement in their new'lo­ cation. Although there are invariably distractions and disruptions to life style, those who are committed seek out and maintain their community acti­ vity. Informal Jewish social izing, rel igious devotion, and activity in­ volvement persist for this group. On the other hand, the majority -- those who were unaffiliated in their previous community -- are even less likely to affil iate when moving to a ~ew city.lO Our data enabled correlations between education, occupation, income and affiliation. Researchers have noted in the past a relationship between socio-economic status and synagogue affiliation. Their conclusion is that Jews with post-college education and in professional positions tend to be -18~

less involved with the synagogue than Jews in other categories. Our study, • however, does not support this hypothesis. We found that the level of synagogue affiliation is virtually the same for persons of all levels of education and occupation. The highest income-earning occupational group which has a greater affiliation rate (28%) than other occupational groups is managers and proprietors. This comparison is.made with lower income­ earning groups -- sales, professionals, clerical, and blue-collar workers (Tables 15 and 16). The income factor plays an important role in synagogue involvement. As income rises so does the extent of participation. Families earning un­ der $30,000 have an affil iation rate between 18-24%; famil ies earning $60,000 or more have an affiliation rate of 49% (Table 17). The data are significant since many Jews have incomes of under $30,000. Indeed, 57% of the persons interviewed in the University of Judaism study reported that the cost of belonging to a synagogue is too high, as compared to 19% who indicated that it was reasonable. l1 An economic barrier seems to be discouraging synagogue participation of working class and poor Je\1s. Those with low incomes are unl ikely to become involved in a temple. Even though most synagogues offer reduced membership rates, many Jews appear reluctant to seek special financial a rrangemen ts.

JEWISH COMMUNAL INVOLVEMENT Does Jewish education matter? Are stUdents with intensive Judaic -19-

training heavily affiliated with Jewish communal activities as adults? We sought answers to these questions by subjecting the University of Judaism data to a series of statistical analyses. Our first observation is that

the ~ of Je\1ish education does not seriously impact the extent of adult affiliation. Adults \1ho had a day school education report a 35% affilia­ tion rate, but this is not significantly greater than former afternoon or Sunday school students who both report 32% rates (Table 18). The key differential is years of Jewish school ing. Six years or 1 ess of Jewish schooling does not seem to make a difference in adult synagogue participation. Those with six years or less of Jewish schooling are no more involved than those who have had no rel igious education. Jewish edu­ cation makes an impact among those with seven or more years of school ing. Adults who had less than seven years of Jewish education have a synagogue affiliation rate of 25% or less. Among adults with seven or more years of Jewish education, the participation rate ranges from 37% to 50% (Table 19). Is the higher rate of affiliation due to the effects of Jewish schooling or Jewish family background? Other research has confirmed that all other factors being equal, adults who have had longer Jewish educations are more religiously observant than those with minimal Jewish schooling. The impact of coming from a Jewishly identified home is comparable to the effects of hours of school instruction. The Jewish family and the Jewish school are the two primary Jewish socializing influences. One learns the norms of Jewish religious practice from both Jewish educational and home life ex- -20-

periences. 12 Persons raised in identifiably Jevlish famil ies who have had seven or more years of Jewish education are the most likely to affiliate. "God, , and the are one." This classic formulation, att- ributed to the , emphasizes the organic nature of Judaism. Religion, peoplehood, and culture are inextricably intertvlined. There are a variety of elements in Jewish life inc1uding religious observance, education, ci­ vil defense, social vlelfare, support of Israel and world Jewry, and so on. Mordecai Kaplan and other religious authorities have argued that these ele­ ments of Jewish life are organically connected. They derive strength and reinforce each other; they blend into each other and are penetrated by each other.13 Our study supports the organic theory of Jewish 1ife. He see the spill­ over effect in operation. Jewish involvement in one area spills over to other areas of community participation. For example, those who belong to Jewish organizations also tend to belong to a synagogue. Forty-eight percent of persons who are involved in Jevlish organizational activity also become ac­

tive in synagogues. The phenomenon goes both \~ays. Synagogue participation ·leads to other forms of Jewish activity; Jewish organizational participation also leads to other channels to express one's Jewishness. In short, the synagogue and organization reinforce each other. Furthermore, 72% of those who belong to synagogues report making donations to the United Jewish Fund, the central fund of the Jewish Federation Council and the United Jewish Appeal (Tables 20 and 21). Synagogue members seem willing to pay their Jewish communal dues in a very literal fashion by supporting the central philanthropic fund. 14 -21-

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS A. Regression Analysis In this study we assessed the impact of various factors on synagogue affiliation. These background factors included denomination, age, sex, marital status, socio-economics, and residence. In order to determine which of these factors most significantly affects affiliation a special statistical technique was employed -- "regression." Regression analysis is one of the most widely used quantitative methods in the social sciences. It is used to test the differential impact of background or "independent" variables on certain phenomena, which are referred to as "dependent variables." In our analysis the independent variables were such factors as age and sex, and the dependent variable was synagogue.affiliation. Using the computerized regression technique, I'le were able to locate the major determinants or predictors of affiliation. The following list con­ tains the positive factors associated with synagogue affiliation. They are 1isted in order of their influence on synagogue membership (the precise· statistical breakdown is contained in Table 22). 15

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH AFFILIATION, IN RANK ORDER RANK INFLUENCE 1 Respondent belongs to one or more Jewish organizations

2 Respondent is of Conservative denomination 3 Respondent and spouse are Jewish 4 Respondent is of Orthodox denomination 5 Household contains one or more children 6 Length of residence in Los Angeles 7 Household income -22-

The facter mest strengly cennected with synagegue membership is that ef belenging to. anether type ef Jewish erganizatien. These persens who. jein Jewish educatienal, cultural, cel1ID1unity relatiens, secial welfare, Israel er everseas Jewry erganizatiens, will also. mest 1 ikely beleng to. a synagegue. Participatien in the American Je\1ish Cemmittee, Anti-Defama­ tien League, American Jewish Cengress, Jewish Cemmunity Relatiens Council, Federatien, United Jewish Appeal, Israel Bends, Jewish Natianal Fund, er any ether fermal erganizatienal structure, is the Joost pewerful cerrelate ef synagegue affiliatien ameng thase facters which we assessed. A full 48% ef these persens who. beleng to. a Jewish erganizatien also. affil iate with a synagegue. Amang these persens who. de net bel eng to. a Jewish erga­ nizatien, enly 19% affiliate. As peinted eut earlier, synagegue and erga­ nizatienal activity are mutuallY reinfercing. Anether pewerful affiliatien predicter is that ef an in-marriage -- beth husband and wife are Jew.ish. Thirty-eight percent ef Jews married to. a barn Jew er who. cenvert to. JUdaism affil iate. A mere 4% af intermarried ceuples jein a synagegue. Altheugh mixed marriage dees net autamatically imply a ceuple's lack ef cemmitment to. the Jewish cemmunity, it dees pese a serieus threat to. Jewish centinuity. Our data and the American Jewish Cem­ mittee study previeusly cited SUbstantiate the lew level ef Je~lish identi­ ficatien ameng mixed married ceuples (marriage with no. cenversian to. Judaism). Only ene in three Jews who. are married to. nen-Jews view their children as Jewish and very few ef them expese their children to. er re- -23- • ligion. In contrast, when Jews marry converts to Judaism (conversionary , marriage), Jewishness is affirmed and translated into Jewish practice, particularly in terms of religious observance and affiliation. There is reason for considerable optimism about Jewish perpetuation when the born non-Jewish spouse converts to Judaism. 16 Other groups most likely to affiliate with a synagogue are persons who self-identify as Conservative or Orthodox Jews. Jews who label them­ selves "just Jewish," or Reform, are not as likely to join a synagogue. Between 42-44% of Orthodox and Conservative Jews belong, whereas 24% of Reform and ?% of no-preference Jews do so. Persons may call themselves particular types of Jews, and Judaism may matter to them, but many are vastly unsure about what call ing oneself a particular type of Jew means or is supposed to mean. At the very minimum, each of the branches of Judaism encourages affil iation. The majority of persons who identify with each of the three major branches of Judaism are, despite this dictum, unaffiliated. Variations exist, but research confirms the general uncer­ tainty of Jews regarding the "requirements" or even the desiderata of Judaism. The attitude of most ,Jews is that affiliation is not a require­ ment."l? Another positive influence for synagogue affiliation is the presence of children in the household. When we combine age, marital status, and children, we identify the factors that contribute to the highest affilia­ tion rate -- married couples in their forties or fifties vlho have minor -24- ..

children living at home ~Iith them. During these child-raising years, the Jewish family continues to have a great deal of child-centeredness. are still heard saying, "Anything for the children." It is almost axiomatic that being Jewish implies "family." Parents still fre­ quently affirm their responsibility to transmit Jewish .identity to their offspring. The degree to which a child identifies with Judaism later in life is primarily shaped by family, school, peer, and synagogue experien­ ces. Although there has been a diminution in affiliation in recent years, almost half of all parents affiliate with a temple -- a conscious invest­ ment in Jewish identity development. 18 Length of residence in the metropolitan area, and household income, are also positive ·influences. Long-time residents and persons at the middle and upper ends of the income spectrum form a large portion of the affil iated. Besides the aforementioned positive influences, there are several negative factors which militate against belonging to a synagogue. In addition to the negative influences previously highlighted, single­ never married, divorced, and widowed Jews are less likely than married persons to become involved in a synagogue.

B. Dropouts

One final subject was explored in this study -- ~Ihy people drop their synagogue membership (Table 23). We found that the highest ranking reasons were that the family had moved out of the community, no longer had child­ ren of school age, and consequently sa~1 no need to make a financial invest- -25- ment in a new congregation (37%). Others stated that membership dues are· too high -- their current financial situation did not allow enough discre­ tionary income to pay the cost of membership. Our data indicate that for some the synagogue is not an institution for significant emotional investment. Only rarely did respondents express anger toward the synagogue. Dissatisfaction does not seem to be the cause of dropping out. The norm for the dropouts is apathy. The apathetic al­ lowed their membership to lapse because they were either not interested, too busy, or maintained the synagogue was too far away. More dissatisfied persons (13%) would make negative statements, such as "I didn't like temple politics or hO\1 the temple was run." A distinct minority attributed dropping out to a change in family life­ style, such as divorce, death of spouse, personal illness, or marriage to a non-Jew. EVen fewer (2%) said they left the synagogue because they did not like the rabbi or cantor.

C. Policy Considerations There are four pol icy impl ications vlhich can be drawn from this study -­ the importance of the spill-over effect; the need for special outreach to particular groups; welcoming newcomers; and dealing with household income barriers. First, our study substantiates the fact that people 11ho are involved in one aspect of communal 1 ife "spill over" to other areas of invol vement. Members of Jewish organizations are likely to also belong to synagogues -26-

and give to Jewish philanthropy. Organizations frequently see themselves in competition for the same members and same donors. Although this is an organizational real ity, there needs to be greater recognition of "the more the more." The more we involve Jews in any positive Jewish activity, the more likely it is that they will become involved in other facets of Jewish life. Synagogues and Jewish organizations together are the mecha­ nism to maintai:-- .Jewish identity. Second, the groups which are least likely to affiliate are the (1) in­

termarried, (2) never-married, (3) divorced, (4) wido~led. Innovative strategies will have to be developed to entice these persons to join. One possibil ity to effectively touch the 1ives of these detached groups is to promote greater diversity within synagogues. Given the multifarious needs and orientations of these four groups, synagogues might consider pro­ viding program diversity. Some synagogues, for instance, provide a varie­ ty of religious programs. These range from traditional to the experimen­ tal, minyanim for people just learning how to follow services, informal gatherings of people in private homes for Shabbat services, services led by lay congregants, or more structured conventional services.

~ Persons turn to synagogues to reap the benefits from these religious options plus to satisfy spiritual, personal, interpersonal, or social needs. A mUlti-purpose synagogue with a diversity of programs would seem most likely to attract individuals who differ in terms of their Jewish identifi­ cation and need. -27-

Third, residential relocation is frequent and disruptive. Mobility lowers ethnic participation among most of the groups we studied. Except for "hard-core" Jews, for whom Jewishness is the central theme of their 1ives, newcomers to a community tend to see synagogue affil iation as low priority. Given the increased prevalence of relocation, efforts to iden­ tify and integrate newcomers are to be encouraged. Fourth, membership dues are a problem. Many of the people interviewed said dues are too high. High membership fees are usually necessitated by building funds and the high cost of maintaining a rel igious school. High fees discourage younger couples, singles, the divorced and widowed from joining, unless they have children of school age. Many synagogues are en­ couraging young people and other new members to experience synagogue life before being asked to carry a full financial burden. Some have suggested that young couples only be charged a nominal sum during their first years of membership or until they have children to enroll in the religious school. The objective of such a policy is to build synagogue commitment of young couples from the beginning of their marriage. In conclusion, synagogues perform three vital community functions. They act as the bet hatefillah, the House of Prayer; the bet hamidrash, the House of Study; and the bet ha knesset, the House of Assembly. In Los Angeles and throughout the United States, the synagogue is a regular assembly point for

Jews. Week after week substantial numbers of Je~ls gather there. Without this institution, many would assimilate. Synagogues give meaning to the statement, "I'm Jewish." -28-

A famous rabbinic saying is, "Do not separate yourself from the commu­ nity."· The rabbis were apparently aware that Jewishness is cultivated within organized religious institutions. By promoting synagogue affilia­ tion, we are in keeping with this traditional Jewi'sh outlook. -29-

NOTES

IFormal Jewish communal affiliation may occur in at least five different spheres: religious-congregational, educational-cultural, community re­ lations, Israel-overseas, or social welfare. Recent patterns of activi­ ty in these five affiliation spheres are elucidated in Daniel Elazar, Participation and Accountabil ity in the Jewish Community (New York: Coun-. cil of Jewish Federations, 1980). The thrust of our study is the reli­ gious-congregational sphere.

2The University of Judaism study 11as directed by Dr. Neil Sandberg and Dr. Gene Levine. The 1979 Federation study was designed and directed by Dr. Bruce Phi" ips.

3Fred Massarik, A Report on the Jewish Population of Los Angeles, 1968 (Los Angeles: Jewish Federation Council, 1968).

4Neil Sandberg and Gene Levine, The Changing Character of the Los Angeles Jewish Community (Los Angeles: University of Judaism, 1981).

5Portraits of Los Angeles synagogue life are contained in Sharon and Michael Strassfeld,(eds), The Third Jewish Catalog: Creating Community (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1980), pp. 223-232 and Jewish Los Angeles - A Guide (Los Angeles: Jewish Federation Council, 1982). -30-

1v1'J'l 6The four facets of religiosity are treated in Sidney Goldstein and Ca Gol dscheider, Jewi sh Americans: Three Generati ons ina Jewi sh Communjjt

(Engle\~ood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1968), pp. 171-231.

7The classic study of affiliation and the life cycle is Marshall Sklar6 and Joseph Greenblum, Jewish Identity on the Suburban Frontier (Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1979).

8Egon Mayer and Carl Sheingold, Intermarriage and the Jewish Future (NeW York: American Jewish Committee, 1979).

II

. ~, 9sidney Goldstein, "Jews in the United States: Perspectives from Demog(IIP ) 9flO ' American Jewish Year Book (Philadelphia: Jewish Publ ication Society, 1

pp. 3-59.

(tV lOCharles Jaret, "The Impact of Geographic Mobil ity on Jewish Community plI -lJ'lg/ (Spf cipation: Disruptive or Supportive?" Contemporary Jewry, Vol. 4 No.2

Summer 1978), pp. 9-21. ,

llSandberg and Levine, University of JUdaism Study, p.6.

12Geoffrey E. Bock, Does Jewish Education Matter? (Ne\~ York: Council Federations, 1975). -31 ...

13Judaism as,an organic civilization composed of intertwined elements is discussed in Mordecai M. Kaplan on His Hundredth Year: The Man, His Thought, His Influence in Judaism, Issue No. 117, Volume 30, Number 1, (Winter, 1981), pp. 3-103.

14A closer inspection of the giving data reveals an important caveat.

Many of those ~Iho report donating to the United Jewish Fund do not ac­ tually do so. There are two explanations. Giving to the Jewish communi­

ty is a "respectable" activity. People who were interviewed may ~/ant to look good and, therefore, over-report the extent of their philanthropy. In addition, respondents may be confusing their giving to the United Jewish Fund with giving to other Jewish charities, such as Israel Bonds, B'nai . B'rith, etc. We suspect that both explanations are valid.

15 It should be recalled that this study collected data primarily on demogra­ phic factors. Since Jewish educational and family variables were included in the University of Judaism study, these issues were not explored in our surveyor inCluded in the regression analysis. A fuller description of the regression model is contained in Hubert Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972).

16Steven Huberman, "From Christianity to Judaism: Religious Changers in American Society" Conservative Judaism (Fall, 1982), pp. 10-28. Also, David Singer; "Living With Intermarriage," Commentary (July, 1979), pp. 48-53. -32-

17 A classic research report on Je\~ish bel iefs and practices is Leonard Fein, Bernard Reisman, et al, Reform Is A Verb (New York: Union of American Heb­ rew Congregations, 1972).

18Influences on Jewish group identification are empirically treated in Arnold Dashefsky and Howard Shapiro, Ethnic Identification Among American Jews (Lexingtoh: Lexington Books, 1974). -33-

LIST OF REGIONAL COMMUNITIES AND APPENDIX OF STATISTICAL TABLES -34-

LIST OF REGIONAL COMMUNITIES SAN FERNANDO EASTERN REGION METROPOLITAN REGION VALLEY REGION Alhambra Bel Air Agoura/Cornell Al tadena Beverly Hills Arl eta Alta Loma Beverlywood Burbank Arcadia Century City Calabasas Azusa Culver City Canoga Park Brea (part) Canyon Country Claremont Inglewood Chatsworth Covina Ladera Heights Encino Cucamonga Los Angeles Glendale Downey Westchester Granada Hill s Duarte Westwood Hidden Hills Eagle Rock La Crescenta Glendora Lakeview Terrace La Canada SOUTHERN REGION Mission Hills La Habra (part) Montrose La Mirada Bell Moorpark La Verne Compton Newbury Park Monrovia El Segundo Nevlha 11 Montclair Gardena North Hollywood Montebello Harbor City Northridge Monterey Park Hawthorne Pacoima Norwalk Hermosa Beach Panorama Ci ty Ontario Huntington Park Reseda Pasadena Lawndale San Fernando Pico Rivera Lomita Santa Susana Pomona Lynwood Saugus Rosemead Manhattan Beach Sepulveda San Dimas Palos Verdes Sherman Oaks San Gabriel Redondo Beach Simi San Mari no San Pedro Studio City Santa Fe Springs South Gate Sun Vall ey Sierra Madre Torrance Sunl and South Pasadena Wilmington Sylmar Temple City Tarzana Upland Thousand Oaks Walnut WESTERN REGION Tujunga West Covina Valencia Whittier Brentwood Los Angeles (part) Verdugo Hill s Malibu Westl ake Mar Vista Woodl and Hill s Marina del Rey Ocean Park Pacific Palisades Playa del Rey Santa Monica Venice -35-

APPENDIX OF STATISTICAL TABLES

Tab1 es 1 Synagogue Membership Past and Present of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles - By Region 2 Synagogue Membership of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles - By Community Area in Rank Order 3 Preference for Branch of Judaism of Jewish Adults - By Age 4 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Preference for Branch of Judaism 5 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Age

6 Synagogue Affil iation of Je~lish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Sex 7 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles - By Marital Status 8 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles - By Number of Children 9 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles - By Age, Marital Status, and Presence of Children 10 Preference for Branch of Judaism of Married Adults - By Type of Marriage 11 Synagogue Affiliation of Married Jewish Adults - By Religion of Spouse

12 Length of Residence of Je\~ish Adults in Greater Los Angeles 13 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults - By Length of Residence in Greater Los Angeles 14 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Birthplace 15 Synagogue Affil iationof Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles - By Educational Level -36-

Tables 16 Synagogue Affil iation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Type of Occupation 17 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Household Income 18 Synagogue Affil iation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Type of Jewish Education 19 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Length of Jevli sh School tng 20 Synagogue Affiliation of Jewish Adults in Greater Los Angeles By Jewish Organization Membership 21 Contributors to the United Jewish Fund in Greater Los Angeles - By Synagogue Affiliation 22 Significant Influences on Synagogue Affil iation - Regression Analysis 23 Most Important Reasons for Dropping Synagogue Membership - In Rank Order -37-

TABLE 1 SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP PAST AND PRESENT OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY REGION

REGIONS

Status of San Fernando Membership Metropo 1 i tan Western Vall ey Southern Eastern Citywide

Presently 28% 19% 24% 21 % 29% 26% belongs ..

Does not presently belong but 33% 41% 49% 34% 24% 40% did in the past

Does not presently belong nor 39% 40% 27% 45% 47% 34% in the past

NUMBER (347) ( 93) (193 ) (70) (69) (772) OF CASES .

NOTE: Membership percentages may vary slightly from table to table due to various weighting effects. In general, the percentages refer to the respondent only. -38- TABLE 2 SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY COMMUNITY-AREA IN RANK ORDER

Total Percent Jewi sh Rank Community Belonging . Population

1 Beverly Hills 54% 29,707 2 Pasadena 36 12,798 3 Beverly-Fa i rfax 32 32,599 '3 Central & East San Gabriel Vall ey 32 13,271 4 Brentwood-Westwood 31 32,520

5 Airport Area 29 13,508 6 West 28 61 ,993 7 Rancho Park-Palms 27 25,319 7 Encino-Tarzana-Sherman Oaks 27 27,037 8 North San Fernando Valley 26 33,322 9 Palos Verdes Adjacent 25 8,059 10 Central San Fernando Valley 24 46,679

10 Other Communities 24 15,405 11 Beverlywood-East 20 18,531 11 Beach Cities 20 10,263" 12 West Hollywood 19 18,501

13 Hollywood-Los Feliz 16 11 ,305 13 Malibu-Pacific Palisades-Santa Monica 16 26,703 14 North Hollywood-Burbank-Sun Valley 14 30,960 15 Mid-Citi es 13 14,655 16 Venice-Mar Vista-Culver City 10 17,734 -39-

TABLE 3 PREFERENCE FOR BRANCH OF JUDAISM OF JEWISH ADULTS BY AGE

Branch Preference 20-29 30-44 45-64 65+ Total

Orthodox 6% 2% 4% 16% 6% Conservative 22 29 34 32 30 Reform 33 39 34 28 34 No Branch Preference 28 22 24 19 23 Other 11 8 4 5 7

NUMBER OF CASES (138 ) (237) (266) (126 ) (767) -40-

TABLE 4 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JE\~ISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY PREFERENCE FOR BRANCH OF JUDAISM

Branch Preference Status of No Membership Orthodox Conservative Reform Preference Other Total Belongs 42% 45% 24% 8% 2Z% 26% . Does Not Belong 58 55 76 92 73 74 NUMBER OF CASES (42) (213 ) (285) (181 ) (23 ) (744)

--====-=- ---=- - -===--=-= -==-=--==-==------=------=--=-==--

TABLE 5 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY AGE

Age Status of Membership .20-29 30-44 45-64 65+ Total Belongs 16% 28% 28% 28% 26% Does Not Belong 84 72 72 72 74 NUMBER OF CASES (147) (250) (279) (127) (803)

• -41-

TABLE 6 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY SEX I . I, Status of Membership Male Female Total Belongs 22% 28% 26% Does Not Belong 78 72 74 NUMBER OF CASES (314) ( 505) (819)

=--=====~-======-====-=====-===-=-=-== ===-=-=-==- =--==-= ==--==--====-==

TABLE 7 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY MARITAL STATUS

Single Status of Never Membership Married Married WidO\~ed Divorced Total Belongs 15% 31% 25% 16% 26% Does Not Belong 85 69 75 84 74 NUMBER OF CASES (148 ) (453) ( 92) (117) (810) TABLE 8 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN

Number of Children* Status of Membership 0 1 2 3+ Total Belongs 20%, 30% 43% 64% 26% Does Not Belong 80 70 57 36 74 Number of Cases (597) (104 ) (89) (29) (819 )

*Number of dependent children under 18 living in household. ..,.I N -----======-- ;';;;.;;0-";;:';;;" __ ==--- I

TABLE 9 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY' AGE, MARITAL STATUS, AND PRESENCE OF CHILDREN

Under 40 Under 40 Under 40 40-64 40-64 40-64 65+ 65+ Not Married Married Married Not Married Married Married Not Married Married Total Status of No Minor No Minor With Minoy No Minor No 11inor With Minor Membership Children Children Children Chil dren Children Chi1 dren Belongs 16% 8% 44% 14% 27.% 46% 27% 28% 26%

. Does Not 72 74 Belong 84 92 56 86 73 54 73

NUMBER (52) (770) OF CASES (154) (67) (101) (92) (143 ) (86) (75) -43-

TABLE 10 PREFERENCE FOR BRANCH OF JUDAISM OF MARRIED ADULTS BY TYPE OF MARRIAGE

TYPE OF MARRIAGE BRANCH CONVERSIONARY PREFERENCE IN-MARRIAGE INTERMARRIAGE MARRIAGE TOTAL Orthodox 4% 4% 8% 4% Conservative 41 14 24 35 Reform 33 40 46 35 No Preference 15 36 18 19 Other 6 6 5 6 NUMBER OF CASES (333) (78) (20) (431)

==- -=== --=== - --=-====-= = --=-=--=====- ---==-= -=------=--=# TABLE 11 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF MARRIED JEHISH ADULTS BY RELIGION OF SPOUSE

RELIGION OF SPOUSE* STATUS OF BORN CONVERT TO MEMBERSHIP JEHISH NON-JEHISH JUDAISM TOTAL Belongs 38% 4% 38% 32% Does Not Belong 62 96 62 68 NUMBER OF CASES (350) (84) (14 ) (448) *Of married respondents only. -44-

TABLE 12 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE .OF JEHISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE* % 9 Years or Less 18 10-19 Years 19 20-29 Years 23 30-39 Years 25 40+ Years 15 *Figured using 1982 as the base year.

==------_==-=== ___ ===_-- -=_===-- - ____ ===--_=====-==== -_-= a-

TABLE 13 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEHISH ADULTS BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN GREATER LOS ANGELES

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE* STATUS OF 9 YEARS 10-19 20-29 30-39 40+ MEMBERSHIP OR LESS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS TOTAL Belongs 15% 27% 27% 28% 30% 26% Does Not Belong 85 73 73 72 70 74 NUMBER OF CASES (141 ) ( 158) (176) (206) (135) (816)

*Figured using 1982 as the base year. -45;'

TABLE 14 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF .JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY BIRTHPLACE (IN RANK ORDER)

% BELONGING NUr~BER BIRTHPLACE TO A SYNAGOGUE OF CASES 1. Europe and Russia 36% (lll ) 2. Northeast (other than New York) 30 (89) 3. Los Angel es 26 (136)

3. ~lest and Southwest 26 (20) 4. Midwest and South 22 (114 ) 5. New York 20 ( 185) 6. Chicago 20 ( 66)

TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES (721)

--=---- -=-----== - =- =.... -;:;- -

TABLE 15 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL

LEVEL OF EDUCATION STATUS OF HIGH SCHOOL SOME COLLEGE POST MEMBERSHIP OR LESS COLLEGE GRADUATE GRADUATE TOTAL Belongs 25% 22% 26% 28% 26% Does Not Belong 75 78 74 72 74 NUMBER OF CASES (244) (224) (208) ( 136) (812) -46-

TABLE 16 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION .OF JEYIISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY TYP~ OF OCCUPATION

TYPE OF OCCUPATION MANAGERS STATUS OF AND BLUE MEMBERSHIP PROPRIETORS PROFESSIONAL SALES CLERICAL COLLAR TOTAL Belongs 28% 24% 25% 21% 17% 24% Does Not Belong 72 76 75 79 83 76 NUMBER OF CASES (94) (222) (98) (118) (60) (592) TABLE 17 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME

INCOME LEVEL* 0 $6,000 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 STATUS OF to to to to to to to $60,000 MEMBERSHIP $5,999 $9,999 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 AND OVER TOTAL Belongs 21% 24% 18% 21% 33% 32% 24% 4.9% 26% Does Not Belong 79 76 82 79 67 68 76 51 74 I .". NUMBER "I OF CASES (80) (55) (141 ) ( 122) (83) (48) (52) ( 66) (647)

*Combined income, whole household. Note: Since these income figures were collected in 1979, they should be used only for broad comparative purposes. -48-

TABLE 18 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEHISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY TYPE OF JEHISH EDUCATION

TYPE OF JEWISH EDUCATION STATUS OF SUNDAY AFTERNOON DAY MEMBERSHIP* NONE SCHOOL SCHOOL SCHOOL Belongs 27% 32% 32% 35% Does Not Belong 73 68 68 65 NUMBER OF CASES ( 68) (183 ) (202) (23) *Respondent only Note: Tables 18 and 19 are computerized reanalyses done by the author on the University of Judaism data set. .

~--- - = ---~--- -- === -==-==-- ==- -==--- -= - -=-= ==- --=-

TABLE 19 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEWISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY LENGTH OF JEWISH SCHOOLING

NUMBER OF YEARS STATUS OF MEMBERSHIP 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 11-12 13+ Belongs 25% 22% 23% 42% 37% 50% Does Not Belong 75 78 77 58 63 50

NUI~BER OF CASES (68) (68) (80) (69) (27) (26) -49-

TABLE 20 SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION OF JEHISH ADULTS IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY JEWISH ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP

BELONGS TO A JEWISH ORGANIZATION STATUS OF MEMBERSHIP YES NO TOTAL Belongs 48% 19% 26% Does Not Belong 52 81 74 NUMBER OF CASES (189) (627) (816 )

-======-=-=-=-=- ===--==-=----=---=--=------===-= -=------=------==-=--=

TABLE 21 CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNITED JEWISH FUND IN GREATER LOS ANGELES BY SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION

- STATUS OF MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTED TO UNITED ' DOES NOT JEWISH FUND* BELONGS BELONG TOTAL. .. . Yes 72% 41% 49% No 28 59 51 NUMBER . OF CASES (i98) (582) (780) *Within last year -50-

TABLE 22 FACTORS ASSOCIATED \'lITH SYNAGOGUE AFFILIATION REGRESSION ANALYSIS

POSITIVE INFLUENCES R2 ==------=-==--- R F SIG RANK Respondent belongs to one or more Jewish organizations 10.9 .33 28.00 .001 1 Respondent is of Conservative denomination 5.7 .29 30.1 .001 2 Respondent and spouse over are Jewish 3.9 .29 2.8 .1 3 Respondent is of Orthodox denomination 1.9 .13 23.3 .001 4 Household has one or more chil dren 1.1 .20 10.4 .005 5 Length of residence in Los Angeles 0.7 .11 5.7 .005 6 Household income 0.7 .14 7.2 .005 7 --==-= =-=----== -= ------= -===------NEGATIVE INFLUENCES =-==--=-=----===--- under over Spouse is not Jewish 0.5 -.16 0.1 .1 1 Respondent is single, never married 0.2 -.14 2.6 .1 2 under over Respondent is divorced 0: 1 -:07 1.6 .1 3 Respondent is widowed under - .01 1.4 over 4 .. 0.1 .1 Respondent is "just Jewish," under under over 5 no denominational preference 0.1 ~.25 0.1 .1 Key ; R2 = % of synagogue affiliation explained by the factor R = Correlation of factor with synagogue affiliation Note: The procedures used in this table are explained in Notman H. Nie et. a1. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, NeVI York: McGraw Hill, 1975 -51-

TABLE 23 MOST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR OROPPING SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP IN RANK ORDER

NUMBER RANK REASON % OF CASES

1 Family moved 37% (101 ) Too expensive/could no longer 2 afford membership 15 (42) Apathy: Not interested/too busy/ 3 too far to travel 15 ( 40) Didn't get anything out of it/ didn't offer anything for mel 4 didn't like temple politics or 13 (34) how the temple was run Family change: divorce/illness/death/ 5 married a non-Jew 8 (23) 6 Children finished Hebrew school 7 (19 ) 7 No reason 3 (7) 8 Did not like Rabbi/Cantor 2 (6) NUMBER OF CASES (272) \

,