Baltimore MD 1999

CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1

Philanthropy and THE ASSOCIATED...... 2

Media Patterns: Radio, Television and Newspaper Usage...... 14

A Profile of Younger, Higher Income Respondents to The Baltimore Jewish Community Population Survey ...... 27

Focus Groups: Marketing ...... 37

Appendices to Focus Group Report...... 48

EXHIBITS

PHILANTHROPY AND THE ASSOCIATED:

Exhibit 1: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 7 Exhibit 2: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Geography, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 7 Exhibit 3: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Years Living in Baltimore, and Age of Respondent, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 8 Exhibit 4: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Household Income, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 8 Exhibit 5: Level of Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Age, for Households with Income of $100,000 or more, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 9 Exhibit 6: Level of Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, Among Those Who Contributed, by Household Income, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data....9 Exhibit 7: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998 by Inmarried, Intermarried Status of Respondent and Denomination, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data ...... 10 Exhibit 8: Reasons for not Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998, Non-Contributors, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 11 Exhibit 9: Key Reasons for not Contributing to The Associated in 1998, by Years Respondent Has Lived in Baltimore, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data..12 Exhibit 10: Key Reasons for not Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998, by Household Income, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data ...... 12 Exhibit 11: Reasons for Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998 Contributors, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data ...... 13 Exhibit 12: Reasons for Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED by Level of Contribution in 1998, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data...... 13

MEDIA PATTERNS: RADIO TELEVISION AND NEWSPAPER USAGE:

Exhibit 1: Radio Listening Patterns: Most Popular Radio Stations Among Respondents to the Baltimore Jewish Community Survey ...... 18 Exhibit 2: Radio Listening Patterns by Age of Respondent ...... 19 Exhibit 3: Radio Listening Patterns by Respondent’s Gender ...... 19 Exhibit 4: Radio Listening Patterns by Income of Household...... 20 Exhibit 5: Radio Listening Patterns by Secular Education...... 20 Exhibit 6: Radio Listening Patterns by Length of Time Living in Baltimore...... 21 Exhibit 7: Radio Listening Patterns by Whether Household Belongs to a Congregation...... 21 Exhibit 8: Radio Listening Patterns and Whether Respondent Feels Part of the Baltimore Jewish Community...... 22 Exhibit 9: Radio Listening Patterns by Denomination of Respondent...... 22 Exhibit 10: Radio Listening Patterns and Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED ...... 23 Exhibit 11: Familiarity With THE ASSOCIATED and Radio Stations...... 23 Exhibit 12: Geographic Area of Residence and Radio Stations ...... 24 Exhibit 13: Television Watching Patterns by Age of Respondent...... 24 Exhibit 14: Newspaper Reading Patterns (% of total)...... 25 Exhibit 15: Newspaper Reading Patterns by Age of Respondent...... 25 Exhibit 16: Newspaper Reading Patterns by Household Income...... 26 Exhibit 17: Newspaper Reading Patterns by Years Respondent has Lived in Baltimore...... 26

INTRODUCTION

This Briefing Book contains the results of the special market research study conducted as part of the Baltimore Jewish Community Study.

THE RESEARCH STRATEGY The purpose of this study is to provide information to help THE ASSOCIATED (and affiliated agencies) better understand the markets they are trying to reach and to improve the methods for reaching those markets. The results of this research can be used to refine THE ASSOCIATED’s marketing strategy over the coming years.

The research has two components S Quantitative analysis of data from the Baltimore Jewish Population Survey S Qualitative analysis using data from two focus groups organized for this special study

The Briefing Book contains four reports; the first three incorporate results from the quantitative analysis and the fourth summarizes the results of the qualitative analysis: S Philanthropy and THE ASSOCIATED S Media Patterns: Radio, Television, and Newspaper Usage by Respondents to The Baltimore Jewish Community Population Survey S A Profile of Younger, Higher Income Respondents to The Baltimore Jewish Community Population Survey S Focus Groups: Marketing

PHILANTHROPY AND THE ASSOCIATED

Prepared as part of The Jewish Community Study of Greater Baltimore

For

Prepared By Ukeles Associates Inc.

Jacob B. Ukeles, Ph.D., President Ron Miller, Ph.D., Research Director

March 2001

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ASSOCIATED

OVERALL CONTRIBUTIONS In 1999, approximately 53% of households reported that they had contributed to THE ASSOCIATED [in 1998]. In 1985, approximately six-in-ten [60%] Jewish households surveyed reported that they had contributed to the Jewish community federation.* This apparent decline in the number of contributions to THE ASSOCIATED is corroborated by campaign data, which also reveal a long-term decline in the number of contributions in absolute numbers of donors – despite an increase in the amount raised by THE ASSOCIATED’s annual campaign.

GEOGRAPHY In 1998, approximately two-thirds of Pikesville/Mt. Washington and Park Heights respondents reported donations to THE ASSOCIATED, while just over half of Owings Mills respondents reported that they had contributed to THE ASSOCIATED. In the other areas defined for the 1999 Jewish Community Study of Baltimore, a minority of households acknowledged contributions to THE ASSOCIATED. Just over four-in-ten Randallstown respondents, and about one-third of Baltimore Center and Towson area respondents reported a 1998 contribution to THE ASSOCIATED. This geographic pattern of giving, with Park Heights and Pikesville/Mt. Washington as the strongest supporters of THE ASSOCIATED, is very similar to the results of the 1985 survey. At that time, the researchers noted: “THE ASSOCIATED is clearly not achieving optimum breadth or depth in the campaign beyond the ‘core’ Jewish areas. The further away from the core areas that families live, the less likely they are to contribute.” The growth in the Jewish population since the 1985 study underlines the importance of this issue today.

NEWCOMERS AND YOUNGER RESPONDENTS Newcomers to Baltimore are least likely to contribute to THE ASSOCIATED; 24% of respondents who had moved to Baltimore during the 1990s reported donating, compared to 59% of those who had lived in Baltimore for at least ten years or who had been born in Baltimore. Younger respondents were similarly least likely to contribute; 35% of respondents under age forty contributed to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998 compared to 75% of respondents who were at least seventy-five years old. Only 18% of respondents under age forty who had moved to Baltimore in the past decade reported an ASSOCIATED contribution. In contrast, 69% of those who were sixty-five or more and had been born in Baltimore or had lived in Baltimore for at least ten years had contributed to THE ASSOCIATED. Clearly, the challenge of engaging young newcomers to Baltimore in the Baltimore Jewish community, and the Jewish philanthropic world, must be central to the Jewish community’s agenda.

* 1985 data have been adjusted to eliminate the non-responses from the calculations, so that 1999 and 1985 methodological procedures are similar. The percent donors in the 1985 report is 585, but the numerical base includes over 1,000 estimated households for which data were not not obtained.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME Obviously, household income shapes, and at times determines, philanthropic behavior, including contributions to THE ASSOCIATED. S Just over one-in-five [22%] Jewish households with annual incomes under $25,000 reported contributions to THE ASSOCIATED. At the other end of the spectrum, 75% of respondents in households with annual incomes of at least $100,000 reported ASSOCIATED contributions. There are, however, at least 1,700 Jewish households with incomes of $100,000 or more that did not report a donation to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998. At least 4,100 households with incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 did not contribute to THE ASSOCIATED. Level of contributions to THE ASSOCIATED – among those who donated in 1998 – strongly reflects household income, but more so among the lower income households. S All of the households earning less than $25,000 that contributed to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998 reported gifts of less than five hundred dollars [$500]. S About 80% of contributing households with annual incomes between $25,000 and $99,999 that did contribute, annually contributed less than $500 to THE ASSOCIATED. S Among the more affluent households, approximately four-in-ten of those households with incomes of at least $100,000 that did contribute to THE ASSOCIATED contributed at least $1,000 to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998. Putting together the picture of non-contributors and contributors with annual incomes of $100,000 or more, of the estimated 6,900 in this group, only 2,200 or about 30% report a contribution of $1,000 or more to THE ASSOCIATED.

INCOME AND AGE If one looks at income and age together, the issue for THE ASSOCIATED is thrown into sharp relief. Of households with annual incomes of $100,000 or more, with a respondent between 18 and 39, 40% reported no gift at all to THE ASSOCIATED last year. Of households with incomes of $100,00 and more, with a respondent 65 or older, only 2% reported no gift to THE ASSOCIATED. For the same income group, only 16% of the respondents between 18 and 39 reported a gift of $1,000 or more to THE ASSOCIATED; whereas 64% of the respondents 65 or older reported a gift of $1,000 or more to THE ASSOCIATED.

INTERMARRIAGE In 1998, about one-in-four [27%] intermarried Jewish households reported an ASSOCIATED gift in 1998, compared to 58% of conversionary-marriage households and 60% of inmarried households.

DENOMINATION Less than one-in-three Secular/Non-Denominational Jews contributed to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998, compared to 49% of Reform, 61% of Conservative, and 70% of Orthodox Jews. If intermarried households are excluded from the analysis, 64% of Reform Jews, and 73% of Conservative Jews contributed to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998.

REASONS FOR NOT GIVING TO THE ASSOCIATED

Respondents who did not contribute to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998 were asked an “open ended” question designed to understand why they had not contributed: “What was the most important reason that your household did not contribute to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998?” While many responses were idiosyncratic, a number of basic reasons emerged: S 22% could not afford to give to THE ASSOCIATED S 11% said that “no one asked” S 15% were not familiar with THE ASSOCIATED S 9% gave to other charities/schools/synagogues/individual charities S 18% told the interviewers that they had negative views and comments about THE ASSOCIATED In 1985, a similar question on reasons for not contributing to THE ASSOCIATED evoked remarkably similar patterns, including 18% who gave negative reasons to explain why they had not contributed to THE ASSOCIATED. The authors of the 1985 report noted, “The listing of negative reasons is unusually high compared to other cities…where similar questions have been asked.”

YEARS LIVING IN BALTIMORE AND NON-GIVING TO THE ASSOCIATED Some interesting differences emerge when “reasons” for not contributing to THE ASSOCIATED are cross-tabulated by the number of years that the respondent has lived in Baltimore. Comparing respondents who have lived in Baltimore for less than ten years with those who were born in Baltimore or have lived there for more than ten years: S Newcomers are more likely to indicate that they cannot afford to give to THE ASSOCIATED, that no one asked them, or that they were not familiar with THE ASSOCIATED: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore; and S Respondents born in Baltimore, or who have lived there for at least ten years, were much more likely to offer negative comments about THE ASSOCIATED as a reason for not having contributed in 1998.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND NON-GIVING TO THE ASSOCIATED Household income is also strongly related to the key reasons that some Baltimore Jewish households did not contribute to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998. S Almost six-in-ten respondents with household incomes under $25,000 said that they could not afford to contribute to THE ASSOCIATED. S Among households with incomes between $25,000 and $49,999, 24% said that they could not afford to donate, another 30% cited negative comments about THE ASSOCIATED, and 16% said that they were not familiar with THE ASSOCIATED. S Upper income respondents either said that no one asked them [17%], that they were unfamiliar with THE ASSOCIATED [22%], or that they had negative feelings towards THE ASSOCIATED [22%].

REASONS FOR GIVING TO THE ASSOCIATED

Respondents who did contribute to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998 were asked a sub-set of questions to determine their reasons for contributing to THE ASSOCIATED: “How important were the following…in your decision to contribute to THE ASSOCIATED?” Reasons for contributing [that were rotated randomly to avoid any bias] included: helping Jewish people in Baltimore receive needed social services and economic help, the Jewish value of tzedakah, combating anti-Semitism, helping Jewish people in Baltimore maintain their Jewish identity, helping Israel and needy Jewish people in Israel, and helping Former Soviet Union Jews in Baltimore with jobs, services, etc. S The most important reason cited by donors to THE ASSOCIATED was helping Jewish people in Baltimore, followed by the Jewish value of tzedakah, combating anti-Semitism, and maintaining Jewish identity in Baltimore. S 76% of contributors thought that helping Jewish people in Baltimore receive needed social services and economic help was very important. S Comparable percentages for the other reasons: the Jewish value of tzedakah: 67%; combating anti-Semitism: 59%; helping Jewish people in Baltimore maintain their Jewish identity: 53%; helping Israel and needy Jewish people in Israel: 50% and helping Former Soviet Union Jews in Baltimore with jobs, services: 43%.

LEVEL OF DONATION AND REASONS FOR GIVING Donors who contributed at least $1,000 to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998 were more likely than those who donated less to feel that the reasons posed were very important to them – with the exception of anti-Semitism. S 92% of respondents in households that contributed at least $1,000 to THE ASSOCIATED cited “helping Jewish people in Baltimore receive needed services or economic help…” S 82% of the $1,000+ donors stressed tzedakah. S 71% stressed helping Israel and needy Jewish people in Israel as a very important reason to give.

EXHIBITS: PHILANTHROPY AND THE ASSOCIATED

Exhibit 1: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Did Not Contribute 47%

Contributed to ASSOCIATED 53%

Exhibit 2: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Geography, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Area Percent Contributing Owings Mills/Reisterstown 51 Pikesville/Mt. Washington 68 Park Heights 63 Randallstown 43 Central Baltimore 37 Towson 33

Exhibit 3: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Years Living in Baltimore, and Age of Respondent, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Percent Contributing YEARS LIVING IN BALTIMORE Less than Ten Years 24 10-19 Years 59 20+ Years, Born in Baltimore 59 AGE OF RESPONDENT Under Age 40 35 40-49 52 50-64 58 65-74 52 75 & Over 75 Respondents Under Age 40 Who Have Lived in Baltimore for Less than Ten Years 18 Respondents 65+ Who Were Born in Baltimore or Have Lived There for at Least 69 Ten Years

Exhibit 4: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Household Income, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Did Household Contribute to THE ASSOCIATED, % By 1999 Household Income 1998? Under $25,000 - $50,000 - $100,000 & Over

$25,000 $49,000 $99,999 Annually

Percent Households That Did Contribute To THE 22 39 55 75 ASSOCIATED, 1998 Percent Households That Did Not Contribute To 78 61 45 25 THE ASSOCIATED, 1998 TOTAL 100 100 100 100 Estimated Number Of Households That Did Not 2,800 3,500 4,100 1,700 Donate To THE ASSOCIATED, 1998

Exhibit 5: Level of Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, by Age, for Households with Income of $100,000 or more, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Amount Donated to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998 % By Age Bracket 18 to 39 40 to 64 65 and over No Gift 40 25 2 Less Than $1,000 43 49 34 $1,000 And Over 16 26 64 TOTAL1 100 100 100

Exhibit 6: Level of Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998, Among Those Who Contributed, by Household Income, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Amount Donated to THE ASSOCIATED, % By 1999 Household Income 1998 Under $25,000 - $50,000 - $100,000 & Over

$25,000 $49,000 $99,999 Annually Less Than $100 78 40 43 18 $100 - $499 22 40 39 28 $500 - $999 <1 13 8 15 $1,000 - $4,999 <1 1 8 26 $5,000 & Over <1 5 1 13 Total2 100 100 100 100

1 Totals may not add to 100% because of rounding. 2 Totals may not add to 100% because of rounding.

Exhibit 7: Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998 by Inmarried, Intermarried Status of Respondent and Denomination, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Status & Denomination Percent Contributing Intermarriage Status Inmarried Respondents 70 Conversionary Marriages 58 Intermarried Respondents 27 Respondent Denomination Reform 49 Conservative 61 Orthodox 70 Secular Jewish &Non-Denominational 33 Inmarried & Conversionary Households Only Reform Jews 64 Conservative Jews 73

Exhibit 8: Reasons for not Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998, Non-Contributors, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Most Important Reason for Not Contributing Percent

Cannot Afford to Give 22

“No One Asked” 11

Not Familiar with THE ASSOCIATED 15

Negative Comments About THE ASSOCIATED 18

Give to Other Charities, Schools, Synagogues, Individual Charities 9

“Not Religious” 3

Do Not Contribute to Jewish Charities 3

Do Not Contribute to Any Charities 1

“Just Moved” 1

No “Specific Reason” 14

Miscellaneous Answers 3

TOTAL 100

Exhibit 9: Key Reasons for not Contributing to The Associated in 1998, by Years Respondent Has Lived in Baltimore, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data3

22% Negative Comments About The Associated 9%

15%

Not Familiar With The Associated 19%

9% "No One Asked" 15%

19% 30% Can Not Afford to Give

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Lived in Baltimore Under 10 Years Lived in Baltimore at Least 10 Years, or Born in Baltimore

Exhibit 10: Key Reasons for not Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998, by Household Income, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

22% Negative Comments About 30% THE ASSOCIATED 3%

22% Not Familiar With THE ASSOCIATED 16% 12%

17% "No One Asked" 6% 8%

4% Can Not Afford to Give 24% 58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Under $25,000 $25,000-$49,000 $50,000 & Over

3 There were too few respondents who had lived in Baltimore for 10-19 years, and who had not contributed to THE ASSOCIATED, for a reliable statistical analysis, so they were combined with those who had lived in Baltimore for at least twenty years or had been born in Baltimore.

Exhibit 11: Reasons for Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED, 1998 Contributors, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Reason for Deciding to Give to Percent Who Say Proposed Reason Was: THE ASSOCIATED Very Somewhat Not Very Not Important Total Important Important Important At All Helping Needy Jewish People in 76 20 2 2 100 Baltimore Jewish Value of Tzedakah 67 22 5 6 100 Combating Anti-Semitism 59 24 8 8 100 Jewish Identity in Baltimore 53 34 8 5 100 Helping Israel and Needy Jewish 50 35 8 7 100 People in Israel

Helping Former Soviet Union Jews 43 38 12 8 100 in Baltimore

Exhibit 12: Reasons for Contributing to THE ASSOCIATED by Level of Contribution in 1998, Baltimore Jewish Community Survey Data

Reason for Deciding to Give to THE Percent Who Feel Reason Was Very Important by Level of ASSOCIATED Contribution Contributed Less Than $1,000 Contributed $1,000 Or More Helping Needy Jewish People In Baltimore 74 92 Jewish Value Of Tzedakah 65 82 Combating Anti-Semitism 58 61 Jewish Identity In Baltimore 50 66 Helping Israel And Needy Jewish People In 46 71 Israel Helping Former Soviet Union Jews In 39 61 Baltimore

MEDIA PATTERNS: RADIO, TELEVISION AND NEWSPAPER USAGE

Prepared as part of The Jewish Community Study of Greater Baltimore

For

Prepared By Ukeles Associates Inc.

Jacob B. Ukeles, Ph.D., President Ron Miller, Ph.D., Research Director

January 2001

The following report derives from an analysis of media patterns – radio listening, television watching, and newspaper reading habits – reported by respondents who were interviewed for the Jewish Community Study of Baltimore population survey. The report primarily focuses upon differentiating characteristics associated with survey respondents – age eighteen and older – who reported listening to different radio stations in the Baltimore area, with less focus on watching different television stations and reading different newspapers.

RADIO STATIONS Respondents to the Baltimore Jewish Community Survey were asked: “Which two radio stations do you listen to most often?” S The two most frequently listened to radio stations are WBAL-AM 1090 and WJHU-FM 88.1; S 27% of the survey respondents say that WBAL-AM is one of their two “most listened to” stations, while 23% cite WJHU-FM; S In terms of household penetration, an estimated 9,600 Jewish households in Baltimore rank WBAL-AM as one of their two most listened to radio stations, while approximately 8,200 households similarly listen to WJHU-FM; of these totals, only 1,300 listen to both stations, indicating minimal overlap. S Five other radio stations are listened to (first or second choice) by at least 3,000 Baltimore Jewish households. These stations are: WBJC-FM 91, WWMX-FM 106.5, WCBM-AM 680, WQSR-FM 105.7, and WLIF-FM 101.9. *

Age Differences in Radio Station Listening Patterns** S WBAL-AM listeners tend to be older; 10% are under age 40, 20% are between ages 40 and 49, 28% are between ages 50 and 64, and 42% are at least 65 years old; S WJHU-FM listeners tend to be younger; 23% are between the ages of 18 and 39.

Income Patterns S Jewish households tend to be relatively affluent, with approximately 25% of respondents who answered the income question reporting household incomes over $100,000 annually. S Over one-in-three respondents who listened to the two most popular stations, WBAL- AM and WJHU-FM, reported household incomes over $100,000, compared to an estimated 25% of all Baltimore Jewish households.

* An estimated 1,600 Jewish households listen to WHFS-FM 99.1, which was not on the original list of stations that interviewers had been given to record responses, but was volunteered by respondents repeatedly enough that a new category was added. The number of respondents who mentioned this station was too small (N=37) to focus additional analysis on this station’s audience. ** Only adults were interviewed; data on Jewish teenager radio listening patterns were beyond the scope of the Jewish Community Study of Baltimore.

Secular Education S 33% of listeners to WBAL-AM, the most popular station, have a graduate degree, 29% have a Bachelors degree, and 38% have either an Associates degree or less; S 58% of WJHU-FM listeners have a graduate degree.

Length of Time Living in Baltimore (just over 50% of respondents were born in Baltimore): S WJHU-FM tended to attract more non-natives than the other major Jewish-audience radio stations; S 20% of WJHU-FM listeners had lived in Baltimore for less than ten years.

Congregation Membership S WBAL-AM and WCBM-AM listeners—the only two AM stations with over 3,000 Jewish household listeners— were more likely to be synagogue members.

Feeling Part of the Jewish Community: S 53% of WBAL-AM listeners feel “a lot” connected to the Baltimore Jewish Community, and only 19% feel “not at all” or “a little” connected; S 46% of WJHU-FM listeners report that they feel “a lot” connected, but 30% feel either only “a little” or “not at all” part of the Baltimore Jewish community.

Denomination S WBAL-AM listeners include significant proportions of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Jews; S WJHU-FM, the second most listened to station, has a considerable proportion (18%) of listeners who are either non-denominational or secular Jews; S WCBM-AM listeners are much more likely to be Orthodox (37% self-identify as Orthodox). S Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED (overall, 53% of respondents report contributions) S 61% of WBAL-AM and 58% of WJHU-FM listeners contributed to THE ASSOCIATED; S Listeners to WLIF-FM are least likely (47%) to report having made contributions in 1998.

Familiarity with THE ASSOCIATED S 80%-90% of respondents to all stations analyzed are very or somewhat familiar with THE ASSOCIATED

Geographic Area S WBAL-AM listeners reside in S Pikesville/Mt. Washington (52%)

S Owings Mills/Reisterstown (21%) S Park Heights (12%) S WJHU-FM has a significant audience in central Baltimore (23%) S WWMX-FM, WSQR-FM, and WLIF-FM have a significant audience in the Owings Mills/Reisterstown area.

Television Stations S Television advertising is much more expensive than radio advertising so only Exhibit 13 summarized television watching among Jewish households in Baltimore.

Newspaper Reading: S The Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore Jewish Times and the Owings Mills Times were the most popular newspapers among Baltimore Jewish households; S Exhibits 15-17 indicate which papers are read “frequently” by the age of the respondent, household income, and the number of years the respondent has lived in Baltimore.

MEDIA PATTERNS: RADIO, TELEVISION, AND NEWSPAPER USAGE Exhibit 1: Radio Listening Patterns: Most Popular Radio Stations Among Respondents to the Baltimore Jewish Community Survey*

Radio Station Percent Of Respondents Mentioning Station Estimated Number Of Households WBAL-AM 1090 27 9,600 WJHU-FM 88.1 23 8,200 WBJC-FM 106.5 12 4,100 WWMX-FM 106.5 11 4,000 WCBM-AM 680 10 3,500 WQSR-FM 105.7 9 3,300 WLIF-FM 101.9 8 3,000

* Is the radio station listed as one of the two “most listened to” radio stations? Responses are not designed to 100%. Respondents often mentioned two of the listed stations. 8% of respondents do not listen to radio, 6% do not listen to any particular radio station, and many respondents listen to other radio stations.

Exhibit 2: Radio Listening Patterns by Age of Respondent*

% By Age of Respondent Radio Station 18 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 64 65+ Total WBAL-AM 1090 10 20 28 42 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 23 24 32 21 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 15 16 30 39 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 42 37 21 <1 100 WCBM-AM 680 18 17 27 38 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 12 37 48 3 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 8 29 44 19 100

Exhibit 3: Radio Listening Patterns by Respondent’s Gender

% By Gender of Respondent

Radio Station Males Females Total WBAL-AM 1090 50 50 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 42 58 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 49 51 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 24 76 100 WCBM-AM 680 37 63 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 34 66 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 33 67 100

* Data may not add to 100% due to rounding, but total is always shown as 100%.

Exhibit 4: Radio Listening Patterns by Income of Household

Annual Household Income (%) Radio Station Under $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $99,999 $100,000+ Total WBAL-AM 1090 15 22 28 35 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 10 18 35 37 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 15 24 40 21 100 WWMX-FM 6 14 47 33 100 106.5 WCBM-AM 680 18 22 34 26 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 8 8 49 35 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 6 31 45 17 100

Exhibit 5: Radio Listening Patterns by Secular Education

Secular Education (%) Radio Station Graduate Degree Bachelors Degree Associates Degree Or Less Total WBAL-AM 1090 33 29 38 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 58 30 12 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 47 31 22 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 25 46 29 100 WCBM-AM 680 27 26 47 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 43 26 31 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 18 39 42 100

Exhibit 6: Radio Listening Patterns by Length of Time Living in Baltimore

Length Of Time Respondent Has Lived In Baltimore (%) Radio Station Less Than 10 Years 10 – 19 Years 20+ Years Born Baltimore Total WBAL-AM 1090 10 8 26 55 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 20 12 31 37 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 13 10 38 39 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 6 22 13 59 100 WCBM-AM 680 9 10 30 51 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 5 16 22 58 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 8 7 27 58 100

Exhibit 7: Radio Listening Patterns by Whether Household Belongs to a Congregation

Congregation Status (%)

Radio Station Belongs To Congregation Does Not Belong Total WBAL-AM 1090 67 33 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 53 47 100% WBJC-FM 106.5 50 50 100% WWMX-FM 106.5 46 54 100% WCBM-AM 680 61 39 100% WQSR-FM 105.7 54 46 100% WLIF-FM 101.9 39 61 100%

Exhibit 8: Radio Listening Patterns and Whether Respondent Feels Part of the Baltimore Jewish Community

Degree That Respondent Feels Part

Of The Baltimore Jewish Community (%) Radio Station A Lot Somewhat Little, Not At All Total WBAL-AM 1090 53 28 19 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 46 24 30 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 43 25 31 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 27 34 39 100 WCBM-AM 680 48 26 26 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 39 33 28 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 32 33 35 100

Exhibit 9: Radio Listening Patterns by Denomination of Respondent

Respondent’s Denomination (%) Radio Station Reform Conservative Orthodox Non-Denominational, Secular Total WBAL-AM 1090 35 34 27 5 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 39 32 11 18 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 32 42 15 11 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 56 35 4 6 100 WCBM-AM 680 29 25 37 9 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 32 43 10 15 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 49 32 11 8 100

Exhibit 10: Radio Listening Patterns and Contributions to THE ASSOCIATED

Contributed To THE ASSOCIATED (%) Radio Station Yes No Total WBAL-AM 1090 61 39 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 58 42 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 60 40 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 51 49 100 WCBM-AM 680 60 40 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 56 44 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 47 53 100

Exhibit 11: Familiarity With THE ASSOCIATED and Radio Stations

How Familiar Is Respondent With THE ASSOCIATED? (%) Radio Station Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All Total WBAL-AM 1090 68 23 2 7 100 WJHU-FM 88.1 62 22 8 8 100 WBJC-FM 106.5 61 24 7 8 100 WWMX-FM 106.5 56 24 9 10 100 WCBM-AM 680 68 23 4 5 100 WQSR-FM 105.7 63 22 2 13 100 WLIF-FM 101.9 51 38 6 5 100

Exhibit 12: Geographic Area of Residence and Radio Stations*

Percent Of Respondents Listening To Station Who Live In Geographic Area

WBAL- WJHU- WBJC- WWMX- WCBM- WSQR- WLIF- Geographic Area AM FM FM FM AM FM FM

Owings Mills/ Reisterstown 21* 17 14 31 22 35 38

Pikesville/Mt. Washington 52 42 49 32 44 32 35

Park Heights 12 4 4 1 20 10 3

Randallstown 4 4 9 2 8 2 11

Baltimore Center 4 23 14 16 2 12 6

Towson-Lutherville-Timonium 5 10 9 9 4 8 <1 I-83 Corridor

Exhibit 13: Television Watching Patterns by Age of Respondent*

% By Age Of Respondent Television Station 18 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 64 65+ All Respondents 2 – ABC 10 14 15 24 16 11 - NBC 32 20 27 31 27 13 - CBS 21 24 27 23 24 22 - PBS <1 <1 3 3 2 45 – FOX 5 7 1 <1 3 Other Stations 3 2 6 3 3 No Particular Station 10 11 14 10 11 Do Not Watch Television 19 23 8 6 14 Total 100 100 100 100 100

*Percentages do not add to 100%; some respondents live in zip codes outside of these six areas used for detailed analysis of the Jewish Community Study of Baltimore. *Question 42(a): “Which TV station do you watch most for local news?” “What TV station do you watch second most?” “What TV station do you watch third most?” Up to three answers combined; percentages based on total number of stations mentioned.

Exhibit 14: Newspaper Reading Patterns (% of total)*

Newspaper Read Frequently Read Occasionally Never Read Paper Total Baltimore Sun 76 16 8 100 Baltimore Jewish Times 44 29 27 100 Owings Mills Times 23 28 49 100 New York Times 16 33 51 100 Wall Street Journal 12 25 63 100 City Paper 11 33 56 100 Baltimore Business Journal 10 14 75 100

Exhibit 15: Newspaper Reading Patterns by Age of Respondent

Percent Who Read Paper Frequently Age Of Respondent Newspaper 18 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 64 65+ Baltimore Sun 57 73 81 88 Baltimore Jewish Times 27 39 52 56 Owings Mills Times 14 22 28 26 New York Times 11 18 19 16 Wall Street Journal 13 12 15 9 City Paper 14 8 * 11 Baltimore Business Journal 10 9 17 5

* Q43: “Does anyone in your household read the Baltimore Business Journal, the Wall Street Journal, the Baltimore Sun, the New York Times, the Baltimore Jewish Times, the Owings Mills Times, the City Paper?” Respondents were also asked if they read any other paper: the Washington Post and USA Today were the most frequently cited spontaneously.

Exhibit 16: Newspaper Reading Patterns by Household Income

Percent Who Read Paper Frequently Annual Household Income Newspaper Under $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $99,999 $100,000+ Baltimore Sun 47 67 78 89 Baltimore Jewish Times 33 38 43 54 Owings Mills Times 13 23 25 25 New York Times 14 10 11 34 Wall Street Journal 2 5 9 23 City Paper 21 14 8 4 Baltimore Business 2 2 8 24 Journal

Exhibit 17: Newspaper Reading Patterns by Years Respondent has Lived in Baltimore

Percent Who Read Paper Frequently Years Lived In Baltimore Newspaper 0 – 9 Years 10 – 19 Years 20 Years + Born Baltimore Baltimore Sun 44 77 86 81 Baltimore Jewish Times 21 43 49 49 Owings Mills Times 9 17 23 29 New York Times 19 21 24 10 Wall Street Journal 16 13 10 12 City Paper 10 15 9 11 Baltimore Business Journal 6 10 11 12

A PROFILE OF YOUNGER, HIGHER INCOME RESPONDENTS TO THE BALTIMORE JEWISH COMMUNITY POPULATION SURVEY

Prepared as part of The Jewish Community Study of Greater Baltimore

For

Prepared By Ukeles Associates Inc.

Jacob B. Ukeles, Ph.D., President Ron Miller, Ph.D., Research Director

January 2001

The following report derives from an analysis of charitable contributions reported by respondents who were interviewed for the Jewish Community Study of Baltimore. The charitable causes were (1) THE ASSOCIATED, (2) other Jewish charities, and (3) non-specifically Jewish charities.

The report focuses upon younger respondents (under age 50) with relatively high incomes -- respondents who either reported annual household income of at least $50,000, or indicated that they had “extra money” when they answered a question on financial status, although they refused to answer the income question.

Younger, high income respondents were further segmented by their reported level of philanthropic donations: (1) those who reported donating at least $500 to a philanthropic charity in 1998, and (2) those who reported contributions less than $500 to any charitable cause. In all tabular analysis, these two groups of young, high income respondents are compared to all other survey respondents. Thus, data presentation is organized by three columns: 1. Respondents Under Age 50: $50,000+ Income or “Extra”: Gave $500 or more donation to any one charity; [137 cases]; 2. Respondents Under Age 50: $50,000+ Income or “Extra”: Gave less than a $500 donation to any one charity; [116 cases]; 3. All Other Respondents [774 cases].

DEMOGRAPHICS Respondent, 18-49 Years Old

Household Income $50,000+ or “Extra Money” Gives $500 or More to Any Gives < $500 to Any All Other Demographics One Charity (%) One Charity (%) Respondents (%) Geographic area Owings Mills/Reisterstown 25 46 17 Pikesville/Mt. Washington 43 19 47 Park Heights 5 1 10 Randallstown 1 2 6 Baltimore Center 12 17 11 Towson, I-83 North Corridor 9 15 5 Born In Baltimore? Yes 41 56 50 No 59 44 50 Years Respondent has Lived in Baltimore Born Baltimore 41 56 50 20+ Years 18 8 28 10 – 19 Years 30 16 7 0 – 9 Years 11 19 15 Household Structure Single, No Kids 10 20 20 Married, No Kids 12 15 19 Single Parents 7 5 2 Married, Kids 71 60 18 Seniors - - 41 Average Household Size 3.9 3.4 2.4 Age Of Respondent 18–39 34 58 15 40–49 66 42 11 50–64 - - 35 65+ - - 39 Secular Education Graduate Degree 45 28 33 Bachelors Degree 38 45 25

Respondent, 18-49 Years Old

Household Income $50,000+ or “Extra Money” Gives $500 or More to Any Gives < $500 to Any All Other Demographics One Charity (%) One Charity (%) Respondents (%) Less 17 27 43 Employment Status Full time 56 60 36 Self Employed 12 4 4 Part time 19 18 14 Student 4 3 4 Homemaker 8 11 6 Retired 1 - 32 Unemployed - 3 3 Subjective Financial Status Have Extra 47 34 27 Have Enough 38 44 43 Just Managing 15 22 30 Household Income

(Missing Data) Under $15,000 annually - - 11 $15,000 - $24,999 - - 11 $25,000 - $49,999 3 8 32 $50,000 - $99,999 45 68 25 $100,000 - $149,000 28 19 11 $150,000 + 24 5 10 Own Or Rent Residence Own 94 82 73 Rent 6 18 27 Cell Phone In Household? Yes 83 84 61 No 17 16 39

JEWISH CONNECTIONS Respondent, 18-49 Years Old

Household Income $50,000+ Or “Extra Money” Gives < $500 To Gives $500 Or More To All Other Jewish Connections Any One Charity Any One Charity (%) Respondents (%) (%) Belongs To A Congregation 61 45 51 Belongs To Other Jewish 51 32 45 Organization Board/Volunteer Involvement Board Member Jewish 26 17 19 Organization Volunteer Jewish Organization 28 19 25 Non-Jewish Board, Volunteer 29 26 19 Activity No Board, Volunteer Activity 17 38 37 Feels Part Of Jewish

Community A Lot 46 36 41 Somewhat 23 32 26 Little, Not At All 31 32 33 Importance Of Being Jewish Very Important 71 82 83 Somewhat Important 21 17 13 Not Very, Not At All 8 1 4 Importance Of Being Part Of

The Community Very Important 43 42 52 Somewhat Important 31 49 34 Not Very, Not At All 26 9 14 Denomination Reform 31 46 36 Conservative 30 41 33 Orthodox 27 6 17 Non-Denominational 4 5 10

Respondent, 18-49 Years Old

Household Income $50,000+ Or “Extra Money” Gives < $500 To Gives $500 Or More To All Other Jewish Connections Any One Charity Any One Charity (%) Respondents (%) (%) Secular 8 2 4 Intermarriage Inmarried 61 63 81 Conversionary Marriage 13 11 6 Intermarried 26 26 13 Jewish Experiences of Adult

Respondent Jewish Study Last 3 Years 46 28 28 Jewish Cultural Events Last 3 67 51 62 Years Jewish Museum Last 3 Years 63 51 59 Jewish Childhood Experiences

Of Adult Respondent Day School 24 18 11 6 Years Education + 36 40 29 Camp/Group <6 Years, Or Camp/Youth Only 19 17 33 None 21 25 26 Respondent Traveled To Israel As 26 13 10 A Child Or Teen Respondent Traveled To Israel As 45 23 47 An Adult

GIVING PATTERNS Respondent, 18-49 Years Old Household Income $50,000+ Or “Extra Money” Gives $500 Or More To Gives < $500 To Any All Other Giving Patterns Any One Charity (%) One Charity (%) Respondents (%) Philanthropic Pattern Jewish & Non-Jewish 79 60 61 Non-Jewish Only 19 35 18 Jewish Only 2 5 9 No Philanthropic Gifts - - 12 Any Gift to THE ASSOCIATED Yes 59 46 53 No 41 54 47 Amount of ASSOCIATED Gift $1,000 + 33 - 22 $500 - $999 18 - 9 $100 - $499 25 56 31 $100 or less 24 44 38 Gifts To Other Jewish 73 48 61 Organizations Size Of Gift To Other Jewish Organizations $1,000 or more 40 0 19 $500 - $999 30 0 10 $100 - $499 20 74 39 Less than $100 9 26 31

Respondent, 18-49 Years Old Household Income $50,000+ Or “Extra Money” Gives $500 Or Gives < $500 All Other Giving Patterns More To Any One To Any One Respondents (%) Charity (%) Charity (%) Does Respondent Have Will? Yes 61 52 70 No 39 48 30 Respondents’ Reasons To Give To THE ASSOCIATED (% Of Respondents Who Say Topic Is Very Important) Help Baltimore Needy 81 70 76 Tzedakah 79 66 65 Anti-Semitism 57 56 60 Israel 49 46 50 Jewish Identity 43 42 57 Former Soviet Union Needy 42 32 45 (NOTE: only asked if respondent’s household made a contribution to THE ASSOCIATED.) Reasons Respondent Did Not Give To THE ASSOCIATED Negative Comments on ASSOCIATED 33 7 17 Not Familiar With ASSOCIATED 26 14 14 No One Asked 7 24 9 Give Individual Charities Only 6 5 4 Give Other Organizations 5 1 4 Not Give Jewish Organizations - 6 3 Not Religious 7 - 3 Cannot Afford to Give 1 5 29 NO REASON 8 25 13 Miscellaneous 3 3 3

Respondent, 18-49 Years Old Household Income $50,000+ Or “Extra Money” Gives $500 Or Gives < $500 All Other Giving Patterns More To Any One To Any One Respondents (%) Charity (%) Charity (%) Familiarity With THE ASSOCIATED Very Familiar 61 42 58 Somewhat Familiar 23 41 23 Not Very Familiar 5 3 7 Not At All Familiar 10 14 12 % Very Familiar With Jewish Communal Organizations Jewish Community Center 71 66 65 THE ASSOCIATED 61 42 58 Jewish Family Service 44 36 42 CHANA 16 10 8 Jewish Information Services 12 9 12 Hebrew Free Loan 13 5 16 Baltimore Jewish Council 12 9 15 Jewish Addiction Services 5 5 4

Respondent, 18-49 Years Old Household Income $50,000+ Or “Extra Money”

Gives $500 Or More Gives < $500 To All Other Media Use To Any One Charity Any One Charity Respondents (%) (%) (%)

Radio Station Listened To Most

Often By Respondent (two coded)

WJHU 24 20 18 WBAL 20 17 25 Both WJHU and WBAL 4 3 4 Other Stations Only 51 57 43 Does Not Listen Radio 1 3 10 Newspaper Readership

(% Read Frequently) Baltimore Sun 82 66 76 Jewish Times 44 36 46 Owings Mills Times 23 28 49 New York Times 19 11 16 Wall Street Journal 19 12 11 Baltimore Business Journal 15 9 10 City Paper 5 7 12 Internet Access Jewish Web-Site Accessed 35 39 20

Internet Weekly; No Jewish Sites 43 35 26

No Internet Access Weekly 22 27 54

FOCUS GROUPS: MARKETING

Prepared as part of The Jewish Community Study of Greater Baltimore

For

Prepared By Ukeles Associates Inc.

Jacob B. Ukeles, Ph.D., President Ron Miller, Ph.D., Research Director and Sundel Research, Inc. Harvey Sundel, Ph.D., President

With the assistance of THE ASSOCIATED: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore Lawrence M. Ziffer, Vice President for Community Development Rachel E. Garbow Monroe, Director of Marketing Matthew J. Freedman, Director of Planning & Allocations

January 2001

BACKGROUND In order to gain additional, qualitative insight into critical marketing issues that THE ASSOCIATED needs to address in Baltimore, Ukeles Associates, Inc., and Sundel Research, Inc., conducted two focus group sessions with members of the Baltimore Jewish community in February, 2001. Jack Ukeles and Ron Miller from UAI, Harvey Sundel from Sundel Research, and Rachel Monroe, Larry Ziffer and Matt Freedman from THE ASSOCIATED coordinated detailed planning for the sessions.

The focus groups were part of an integrated, multi-part research strategy designed to explore central marketing issues: the need for THE ASSOCIATED to effectively promote the case for both involvement in the Jewish communal enterprise in Baltimore and for financial contributions to meet the needs of the local, national, Israel and global Jewish community—particularly among younger Jews and newcomers to Baltimore.

On a national level, Jewish Community Federations (and other Jewish organizations around the country) face a variety of marketing challenges: S A younger generation that is somewhat disengaged; S Greater opportunity for Jews to participate in the nonsectarian community; S Greater competition for people’s attention and for the philanthropic dollar; S Greater interest in targeted, donor-directed giving and less support for the global, umbrella entities; S A perception that federations are elitist and old-fashioned; and, S Increasing geographic mobility, particularly among younger Jews, which creates the need to integrate newcomers into existing communal structures.

But there are also substantial opportunities. On a national level, S Jews continue to be charitable and to volunteer their time for good causes; S There is a great deal of wealth, both new wealth as well as established wealth in the Jewish community.

In some ways, experience and research in Baltimore parallels the national context, while in other ways, Baltimore is a unique community. Baltimore is an unusually strong, active, highly affiliated Jewish community. But there are some segments of the community that seem under-connected. The results of the quantitative Baltimore Jewish Community Surveys indicate that younger people are somewhat more disengaged from the community than older Jews: they are more likely to give to non-sectarian causes, less likely to give to THE ASSOCIATED, or to be familiar with THE ASSOCIATED and are less likely to feel part of the Baltimore Jewish community. In addition, newcomers to Baltimore seem less connected to the community than Baltimore natives. People who have been in Baltimore less than 10 years are less likely to give to any charitable cause or to be familiar with THE ASSOCIATED or other Jewish organizations. People who have been in Baltimore less than twenty years are less likely to feel part of the community; at the same time, they report that they would like to be part of the community. These findings are buttressed by qualitative research findings during the earlier phases of the Community Study

(leadership study and Jewish family engagement study). In these focus groups, people who were not born in Baltimore expressed their feeling that unless one is a native, one is not really “in.”

PARTICIPANTS, PROCEDURES AND ISSUES The focus groups were intended to explore important marketing issues with relatively younger Jews and Baltimore non-natives with considerable financial resources (e. g., household incomes of at least $50,000 annually).

Two focus group sessions were conducted at the Chesapeake Surveys facility in Owings Mills, Maryland in early February 2001. Since the research team had decided that younger/newcomer respondents in Owings Mills and Reisterstown needed to be included in the focus groups, the Chesapeake Surveys facility was ideal (as well as comfortable and professionally run). Dr. Harvey Sundel, President of Sundel Research Inc., the firm that conducted the survey interviews for the Baltimore Jewish Community Study, served as moderator. Focus group participants were told that other members of the research team were observing from behind the mirrored wall in the focus group facility, and that the conversations were being taped so that the research team could re-listen to their comments later. Ron Miller, Rachel Monroe, Larry Ziffer and Matt Freedman listened and observed from behind the mirror. The five-person research team debriefed after the sessions, as well as the morning after the second focus group. Both sessions began at 6:30 p.m. and lasted until 8:30 p.m. A kosher meal was provided from 6:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. in an appropriately sealed and certified box. Unwrapping the meal and exploring/eating its contents provided the group with an interesting topic to begin their development as a temporary social group. A total of 19 participants (out of 20 invited) interacted during the sessions, and were later paid a $50.00 fee as a partial “thank you” for their time and efforts.

All focus group participants had been interviewed for the Jewish Community Study survey, building in a random component in the focus group creation process. All respondents had indicated at the conclusion of the 1999 quantitative survey that they were willing to be part of additional group research sessions in the future. Sampling criteria for screening included: respondent under age 50, and household income over $50,000 or the respondent had indicated that they had “extra money” during the quantitative survey. An effort was made to include both native Baltimoreans and non-natives (some participants had originally lived in Chicago, New York, Seattle and the Former Soviet Union), and to include respondents who had contributed less than $500 to any philanthropic sector as well as those who had contributed at least $500 to one philanthropic sector. Respondents lived in Owings Mills, Reisterstown, Pikesville/Mt. Washington, Park Heights, Randallstown, and central Baltimore.

The initial contact from Sundel Research reminded the participant that they had been interviewed for the Jewish Community Study, and invited them to participate in an exciting discussion of issues that had emerged from the community survey. Deliberate efforts were made not to indicate that THE ASSOCIATED was sponsoring the focus groups. None of the communications from Sundel Research (initial contact, letter acknowledging their willingness to participate, pre-focus group reminder call) mentioned THE ASSOCIATED; while the food was catered from THE ASSOCIATED’s facility, no indication that the food was provided by THE ASSOCIATED existed; the signup sheet provided for the participants mentioned The Jewish Community Study only.

The topics and possible questions to be asked during the sessions had been developed by the research team, and incorporated into a Moderator’s Guide, a copy of which is appended. Dr. Sundel, who had convened well over 400 focus groups prior to these sessions, essentially internalized the issues addressed in the Moderator’s Guide and guided focus group participant conversations to (1) cover the key issues that had been outlined, and (2) facilitate the flow of the conversation by following up on interesting ideas that emerged from the group. Conversations flowed freely, and at no time did the participants see a typed version of the Moderator’s Guide, nor did it appear that only a set agenda was to be discussed.

Topics covered in the Moderator’s Guide included: S How important it was for focus group participants to be connected to the Jewish community, to be a part of the Jewish community of Baltimore; S How focus group participants defined their connection to – or disconnection from – the Baltimore Jewish community; S Whether any of the participants had experienced roadblocks to becoming connected to the Jewish community; S A comparison of the potentially varying experiences of natives and non-natives; S What focus group members knew about Jewish organizations in the Baltimore area, and how they had learned about Jewish communal organizations; S To have participants evaluate themes and messages that might be used to increase community awareness and interest in being involved in the Jewish community; S To see what messages were likely to be the most persuasive in making the case for involvement in and charitable contributions to the Jewish communal enterprise; S To see what methods of delivery were likely to be the most effective in reaching non- natives.

The time structure for each two hour session was designed to allow for a brief review by the moderator of focus group procedures and goals, self-introductions by the participants to their fellow group members (including whether they were born in Baltimore or elsewhere, household structure, occupation), and then a series of questions on the importance of involvement in the Jewish community, and their current connections/disconnections to the community – including synagogue membership, volunteer activities, etc. A five minute break occurred at approximately 7:30 p.m., during which time a brief interaction between Dr. Sundel and the four, behind-the- mirror observers (Miller, Monroe, Ziffer, Freedman) allowing a quick window to review any issues that had emerged. After the break, the moderator planned to discuss focus group participant knowledge of and views of THE ASSOCIATED, and then show a series of possible ASSOCIATED campaign “tag lines” / slogans / messages to the group members to get their reactions to potential campaign advertising.

At the conclusion of the session, the participants were thanked for their efforts and their time, and received their honorarium from the Chesapeake Surveys facility staff.

LIMITATIONS Despite the research team’s view that the results of the Marketing Focus Groups were extraordinary, and were an invaluable qualitative supplement to the special marketing quantitative analyses, a word of caution needs to be added.

Limitations associated with focus groups in general and with this research in particular: S The focus groups comprised a small number of participants who, although part of the random selection processes from the survey, were not randomly selected from the Baltimore Jewish population. S Further, respondents were recruited among those individuals who participated in the Baltimore Jewish population study and said they would be willing to participate in future research. The extent to which the opinions of participants may differ from those who (1) did not participate in the original study, or (2) did participate in the first study, but would not participate in the focus groups is not known. S Respondents were asked to react to potential campaign slogans without seeing the slogans within the context or content of the ads in which they will appear. While some slogans were ranked more appealing than others, the extent to which opinions might change when slogans are seen with ads is not known. S While group interaction provides an opportunity to stimulate thinking and generate ideas, it does not necessarily show the manner in which participants might behave outside a group setting. For example, some participants might be influenced by the comments of others; while others might give responses they deem “socially acceptable” even though they differ from their true feelings.

For these reasons, the results of this study should be viewed as “directional,” not quantitative. On the other hand, the insights of members of the focus group reinforced many comments that had been made to interviewers during the quantitative phase of the survey, and did not surprise members of the research team who were members of THE ASSOCIATED’s staff. Indeed, many of the comments by session participants were useful precisely because they often captured the essence of remarks offered in other contexts.

HIGHLIGHTS Connecting to the Community S Most focus group participants felt that it was important to be connected to the Jewish community, including those who were not currently connected. S Many members expressed pride in the strong, stable Jewish community of Baltimore. S Participants connected to the Jewish community through “school and shul”. S Congregational affiliation (synagogues or shul were the terms used by almost every participant, regardless of denominational identification) is seen as the essential defining aspect of Jewish community involvement. S Participants with young children are especially concerned about their Jewish educational opportunities and cost, especially with a perception that public school education will increasingly deteriorate. S A minority of focus group members had become disconnected from the Jewish community “…after the kids got older,” after bar/bat mitzvah; mostly Baltimore natives, this group needed to find a way and a reason to remain connected outside of “school and shul.”

Roadblocks S Implicit in many of the comments was a sense that the Jewish communal structure, including THE ASSOCIATED, was outside of and separate from “school and shul.” A seamless blend of school, synagogue, and the Jewish communal structure existed only for a few participants. S As one member of the research team observed after listening to the focus group interactions, “…and then there is THE ASSOCIATED.” S Focus group members were keenly aware of the reality that many of the strengths of the Baltimore community could also be viewed as weaknesses; thus, the strong, stable Baltimore community was also defined by some participants as a “community of generations,” with long-term stability making it difficult for newcomers to connect and to become integrated. S A few assertive non-natives, however, did not find it difficult to connect with other non- natives, but insisted that one has to want to be connected and has to be proactive to connect. S Volunteering was often initially developed within the school/shul axis, revolving mostly around families with young children. Transitions to community-wide volunteer involvement were essentially dependent on the initiative of the member of the Jewish community; no organized network existed in their minds to link them to issues beyond their children’s Jewish education. Participants often seemed unclear on options outside of school/shul volunteering. S Some participants realized that volunteer opportunities existed, and many expressed a desire to volunteer to help people – but not to raise money!! Others were not aware of the volunteer needs of the community, and did not know where to look for opportunities. S Focus group members were familiar with The Baltimore Jewish Times, and recognized that volunteer opportunities might/should be advertised there, but the group sense was that the opportunity to use the Jewish Times for volunteer recruitment had not been utilized successfully. S A Volunteer Hotline was suggested as a way to improve knowledge of volunteer opportunities and challenges; none of the focus group participants appeared to be aware that THE ASSOCIATED was in the process of discussing/developing a similar model. S As a recognition of volunteering on a communal level, one participant recommended (and then others became excited at the notion) an Unsung Heroes campaign – in the Jewish Times and elsewhere—praising a volunteer each month, who typically did not receive much publicity. S Participants mentioned that articles and photographs in the Jewish Times (and other communal publications) always showed the same people, the Baltimore Jewish elite. While there was an element of jealousy, as well as of intimidation, the Unsung Heroes campaign/competition was suggested as a device to stress the importance of “lower level” volunteering in the Jewish community.

THE ASSOCIATED* S Despite the research team’s efforts to minimize the role of THE ASSOCIATED in conducting the focus groups, during the first part of the group session, spontaneous comments about THE ASSOCIATED – both positive and critical – often dominated the conversations; at this early stage of the two-hour meeting, the moderator never indicated that, indeed, this was an ASSOCIATED project. S After the brief five minute break in the focus groups, issues about THE ASSOCIATED were addressed once again, but they were initiated by session participants as often as by the moderator. S A few participants viewed the focus group as an opportunity to be heard by THE ASSOCIATED, further underscoring a clear cognitive integration of THE ASSOCIATED and the Baltimore Jewish community among focus group participants, and probably the wider Jewish community. S People knew what THE ASSOCIATED did, in general. Group members were asked to write brief descriptions of what THE ASSOCIATED is/does, and then read them to the group; in every case, a general sense of the mission and the potential of THE ASSOCIATED was clear. S However, details were often unclear or confused – particularly in terms of separating the mission and structure of ASSOCIATED agencies and THE ASSOCIATED. For example, some participants thought THE ASSOCIATED was the direct service provider. S Some of these misunderstandings of the scope of THE ASSOCIATED’s activities ultimately created definite antagonism and annoyance for several participants. Some focus group members said that they called THE ASSOCIATED and asked for assistance, or someone they knew called and asked for assistance, and were “turned down.” Issues related to Jewish education of children, and needed social services were of special importance to focus group members.

*In the quantitative survey for the Jewish Community Study of Baltimore, one question asked non-contributors to THE ASSOCIATED: “What was the most important reason that your household did not contribute to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998?” Verbatim comments to this question were recorded; a quantitative analysis is contained in Philanthropy and THE ASSOCIATED, the first report in this Marketing Briefing Book. Verbatim comments that provide insight on the image of THE ASSOCIATED are appended to this report, Focus Groups: Marketing.

S Expecting direct service from THE ASSOCIATED, or anticipating that THE ASSOCIATED would act as a Jewish communal link resulted in frustrating encounters and some intense negative feelings about THE ASSOCIATED in terms of its perceived/misperceived role in Baltimore. S In terms of both THE ASSOCIATED and roadblocks to communal involvement, a number of participants seemed unclear about how to link to the Baltimore Jewish community for needed services, for volunteer activities, and for information; they clearly expected THE ASSOCIATED to serve as a central informational and referral service, a function currently operated in Baltimore via Jewish Family Services. S THE ASSOCIATED is seen as a major strength of the community, integrating the Baltimore Jewish community and raising funds to provide for local and international assistance. S At the same time, THE ASSOCIATED is seen as elitist and cliquish, with many focus group members recognizing the implicit duality that the fund-raising strength of the organization has resulted in a need to involve and reward large contributors to the campaign. S Comments on the elitist nature of THE ASSOCIATED took many forms, both analytical and critical. S Analytically, the community was described as a “community of generations,” implicitly understanding that the stability of the Baltimore Jewish community, and the prestigious families that supported much of the community’s charitable efforts, had the undesired effect of also creating an “elite” Jewish sub-community. S One participant noted that the listing of the names on THE ASSOCIATED’s letterhead was intimidating, although it reflected their service to the Baltimore Jewish community. S Baltimore, Jewish Baltimore, was similarly viewed as cliquish. The community was portrayed by one participant as organizationally easy to access, but intergenerationally difficult to access. S On a critical level, THE ASSOCIATED was largely perceived as a fund raising organization, with the highest levels of lay leadership reserved for those who gave the largest donations – a clear financial barrier to their own potential involvement in Jewish communal activities, as well as a psychological barrier. Of course, participants recognized the importance of fund raising, and the valuable contributions that these contributions made in the lives of Baltimore Jews and Jews elsewhere in the world. S To a few members of the groups, the allocations process was unclear, how THE ASSOCIATED used its financial resources was unclear, and recommendations to demystify the process were offered; these individuals acknowledged, however, that they had not tried as hard as they could to obtain the information. Interestingly, several acknowledged that they received information on how funds were actually allocated (not the reasons for the allocations) and just briefly scanned the information and then discarded it. These participants could not summarize anything about the previous year’s allocations to agencies. S Strong communal pride existed in the role of THE ASSOCIATED and other Jewish organizations in responding to crises in the Jewish community, as in a recent pro-Israel demonstration.

S Focus group members wanted THE ASSOCIATED to be the key unifying force in the Baltimore Jewish community; clearly, there were many perceptions that THE ASSOCIATED had partially fulfilled this role. S In contrast, some misperceptions by focus group members contributed to a sense that, at times, THE ASSOCIATED was more a divider than a uniter. At one point in the conversations, one respondent indicated that THE ASSOCIATED was somewhat biased in favor of the orthodox Jewish community; an orthodox participant, laughing a little, responded that she had always thought the opposite, that THE ASSOCIATED was somewhat biased to non-orthodox denominations. S Denominational misperception, or just a lack of clarity by members of the groups on THE ASSOCIATED’s links to the congregational world, indicated that THE ASSOCIATED cannot just assume that all members of the Baltimore Jewish community will recognize that the programs and funding policies of the organization are designed to assist all groups in the Jewish community.

Themes and Messages S In terms of logos and advertising, several participants could recall THE ASSOCIATED logo without prompting; they knew it had block letters and was blue, but did not know or recognize the “snowflake” (people holding hands). S Memories of ASSOCIATED ads in the Jewish Times existed among session participants, but almost in a haze; the long-term back page ads in the Jewish Times that THE ASSOCIATED sponsors every week were not clearly remembered as THE ASSOCIATED’s space. S Slogans emphasizing concepts like “you can make a difference,” were seen as useful for volunteer-related programming, but not necessarily for campaign fund-raising. * S In one group, “giving” help and hope to people was viewed positively; in the other group, criticism of money-related messages had included negative comments on “giving” in a financial sense, but the group reacted negatively to the theme of giving help and hope in this context. ** S Participants reacted negatively to “tag lines” / slogans that include the words; “Campaign,” or “Invest;” or to anything that speaks directly to “money.” S Participants indicated that they knew THE ASSOCIATED, that they were going to contribute anyway (if they planned to contribute), and did not like “money messages.” S The issue of campaign and money in potential slogans for marketing THE ASSOCIATED reinforced critical comments made by some particularly disgruntled participants; one noted that it was “sad” (and symptomatic) that the evening’s discussion on the Jewish community in Baltimore was ultimately concluded with a quest for fund-raising slogans.

S Messages of solidarity, of oneness, unity and strength in community resonated for most participants; messages with these themes were universally viewed positively. S Several respondents suggested combining a few of the potential slogans, or in revising the structure/content of a possible advertisement emphasizing unity and solidarity. *** S The views of the focus group members on the slogans should be viewed as another source of input for campaign and marketing decisions, not as a definitive summary of probable community responses.

*A final list of twelve slogans / themes / “tag lines” was presented to the second focus group, after some revisions based on the first night’s focus group’s members’ comments. A “scorecard” for these themes was constructed during the focus group sessions, as a way to consolidate ideas and stimulate further discussion. The “scorecard” follows the Moderator’s Guide as an appended document. **Please see earlier section on “Limitations,” for a discussion of the issue of group dynamics. ***Please review earlier comments in “Limitations” section on the separation of actual ad context and the slogan.

RECOMMENDATIONS S Develop an Unsung Heroes and Heroines advertising campaign to demonstrate the importance of all members of the community, not just the affluent elite: Volunteer of the Month Award Mitzvah Heroes and Heroines S Develop a Volunteer Hotline at THE ASSOCIATED and promote its existence in order to publicize the need for volunteers, inform the community of potential areas for service, stress the importance of volunteering, and underscore the ease with which volunteering can be accomplished. S Provide access to meaningful volunteer and leadership positions based on interest and qualifications, not level of donations. S Position THE ASSOCIATED as a unifying force in the Baltimore Jewish community. S Review the existing Jewish information and referral service structure, recognizing the low visibility of the current organization according to the quantitative survey, the lack of clarity among focus group respondents as to where to go for information, and the expectation that if they call THE ASSOCIATED, they will receive assistance. S Consider corporate models where referrals to other organizations, or internal transfers, are completed by the initial information/assistance staff member, and don’t just rely on giving callers appropriate phone numbers to call themselves. S Focus on the community relations aspects of all contacts to THE ASSOCIATED, concentrating on the professional and interpersonal skills of “point of contact” staff; Introduce a follow-up phone call mechanism to confirm that assistance has been received. S Clarify and focus the mission and processes of THE ASSOCIATED and of affiliated agencies. Consider promoting publicly positive information on allocations decisions, such as the number of people involved in decisions, and the process itself. S Increase the commitment of THE ASSOCIATED to the synagogue affiliation campaign, and explore other opportunities to partner with synagogues in community outreach efforts. S Recommit THE ASSOCIATED to the expansion of private Jewish education in the near future, particularly in a non-denominational structure; increasingly, Jewish communal members may look towards THE ASSOCIATED for assistance and advice as perceptions increase that the public school system is continuing to deteriorate. S Slogans used in advertising should be positive and future based; they should stress solidarity and unity; further exploration on the negative potential of money-based appeals should be undertaken. S Consider deleting the Jewish Times back page advertisements, and either vary message placement or develop monthly center spreads that function primarily as information base dissemination.

APPENDICES TO FOCUS GROUP REPORT

MODERATOR’S GUIDE SLOGAN / “TAG LINE” RATING SCORECARD VERBATIM COMMENTS FROM SURVEYS RE: THE ASSOCIATED

APPENDIX A

MODERATOR’S GUIDE Final revised version Focus Groups: February 7, February 8, 2001

I. MODERATOR INTRODUCTION

II. PURPOSES – REVIEWED FOR FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS

1. To gain some qualitative insights into some interesting findings from the Baltimore Jewish Community Survey, 2. To understand how important it is to you to be connected to the Jewish community, to be a part of the Jewish community of Baltimore. 3. To understand how people are connected to or disconnected from the Baltimore Jewish community, and whether any of you have experienced roadblocks to becoming connected to the Jewish community. 4. To compare the experiences of those of you born or raised in Baltimore with those who have moved here from other areas. 5. To understand what you know about and how you learned about Jewish organizations in the Baltimore area; and, 6. To have you evaluate themes and messages—“tag lines”—that might be used to increase community awareness of and participation in the Jewish community.

III. PROCEDURES

IV. RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION

1. Name 2. Occupation 3. Family/Household Status 4. Born Baltimore / How long lived in Baltimore area 5. Where lived previously - if not born in Baltimore

V. INVOLVEMENT IN LOCAL COMMUNITY

S How important is it to you to be connected or involved in the local Jewish community – to be a member of the Baltimore Jewish community? PROBE: Why is it important? Why is it not important to you? 2. Do you feel connected or involved with the Baltimore Jewish community? A. Why/why not? How? B. How are you connected? PROBES Are there any specific things that a person has to do to be a member of the Baltimore Jewish community? What defines someone as a member of the Baltimore Jewish community? C. Are there any ways that you personally would like to be more involved in the local Jewish community? D. For those of you who were not born or raised in the Baltimore area, how easy or difficult was it for you to get involved in the local Jewish community? i. Why? [PROBE FOR BARRIER] ii. What could the Jewish community have done to make it easy for you to get involved? 3. Other than donations, in the last several years, in what ways have you been involved in the local Jewish community? [PROBE: Volunteered your time, served on boards; committees, etc.] A. For what Jewish organization? B. When? C. Specifically, what did you do? [PROBE: Skills used.] 4. How did you happen to become involved as a volunteer? A. How would you describe your experiences? B. What felt good about volunteering? C. Did anything feel “not so good”? D. Did you volunteer because you were asked, or did you proactively seek volunteering opportunities? E. How easy is it to find volunteer opportunities today? F. Right now, if you were interested in volunteering, how would you go about looking for information about volunteering - for places to volunteer? G. If no volunteer activities… Is there a particular reason why you have not been a volunteer for any local Jewish organization? i. Were you asked? ii. Did you try to volunteer? What happened?

5. What about non-Jewish organizations? Have you served on any boards, committees, or been a volunteer in any non-Jewish, non-profit organizations? A. Which one(s)? [PROBES: BALTIMORE BORN - NON-NATIVE DIFFERENCES PROBED IF APPROPRIATE] 6. When you were deciding to volunteer your time, or thinking about serving on a committee/board, what did you look for in a nonprofit organization? Anything else? 7. In terms of donating money to a non-profit organization, what do you look for?

VI. BALTIMORE JEWISH COMMUNITY AND THE ASSOCIATED

1. What, if anything, turns you on about the Baltimore Jewish community? 2. What turns you off? 3. How many of you are familiar with THE ASSOCIATED? 4. In your own words, please write down what you think THE ASSOCIATED does - what THE ASSOCIATED is. [DISCUSS] 5. How did you first become aware of THE ASSOCIATED? Learn about it? S Do you remember any ads from THE ASSOCIATED? Where? S Can you describe the logo of THE ASSOCIATED? What does it look like? What color is it? S Do you remember any recent mailings from THE ASSOCIATED? 6A. What does THE ASSOCIATED do especially well? 6B. Where do they need to improve? PROBE: Does anything turn you off about THE ASSOCIATED? PROBE: Non-Baltimore native experiences. 7. A number of you have mentioned other non-profit organizations to which you have donated your time or your money, for example, …. How does THE ASSOCIATED compare with …..???

VII. POTENTIAL MESSAGES THE ASSOCIATED is looking for ways to communicate its mission, its function, and its goals to Jewish households in Baltimore. First, we would like to show you some possible messages / themes / “tag lines” that might be used in the near future. S You Are the Difference S You Can Make the Difference S Lev Echad. Am Echad. One Heart. One Nation/People S Our Community's Campaign S Building Better Lives S Giving Help. Giving Hope. S The Strength of Community S Strengthening Our Families S Invest in Your Community S A Community of Possibilities S Building Community Together

1. In your own words, what is this message/slogan saying to you? A. Please write down how you would judge it: Very Appealing, Somewhat Appealing, Not Very Appealing, Not At All Appealing B. If you saw it in a newspaper, a magazine, or heard it on radio, would you want to learn more? Why? Why not? C. Does it attract your attention? D. Overall, what is your opinion of it?

2. What about message #2? ….. [REPEAT SEQUENCE]

3. AFTER ALL MESSAGES - Now, looking at all the messages: A. Which do you like best? B. Least? C. Why?

4. Did any of these messages/ideas make you think of other messages, commercials from other philanthropic causes? PROBE AS APPROPRIATE: Do you remember having seen any messages, commercials from other philanthropic causes? What did you think of them? How do they compare?

5. Let’s see if we can be creative. Please see if you can write down a message - a theme that you think might be better than the ones we have just talked about.

Let’s focus on the idea behind the slogan, as well as the slogan

APPENDIX B

Ratings Of “Tag Lines” by Focus Group Participants

Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All Message Final Appealing Appealing Appealing Appealing 4 3 2 1 You Are the Difference J JJJJJ JJJJJJJ JJJJJJ You Can Make the J JJJJJJJ JJJJJJJ JJJJ Difference JJJJ JJJJJJ Lev Echad. Am Echad. One J English only English only JJJ JJJ Heart. One People. Hebrew in back Hebrew in back Our Community’s Campaign J JJJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJJ A Campaign for Our J JJJJ JJJJJJJ JJJJJJJ Community Building Better Lives J JJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJ JJJ Giving Help. Giving Hope. J JJJJJ JJJJJJJJ JJJJ JJ The Strength of Community J JJJJ JJJJJJJJ JJJJJ JJ Strengthening Our Families J JJJJJJJJ JJJJJ JJJJ Invest in Your Community JJ JJJJ JJJJ A Community of Possibilities J JJJJJJ JJJ Building Community J JJJ JJ JJJJ Together

APPENDIX C

SELECTED COMMENTS FROM QUANTITATIVE SURVEYS The interviewers from Sundel Research, Inc. recorded the following verbatim comments during interviews for the Jewish Community Study of Baltimore.

Respondents who said that their household had not contributed to THE ASSOCIATED were asked why they had not contributed: “What was the most important reason that your household did not contribute to THE ASSOCIATED in 1998?”

The responses were recorded and later transcribed at Ukeles Associates, Inc.

The comments that are quoted, like the focus group participant remarks, should be viewed as qualitative and directional, not definitively quantitative. They are interesting as an insight into the views of non-contributors, but caution should be used in their interpretation, especially since some comments may not be accurate. They must be interpreted in context, since respondents who contributed to THE ASSOCIATED were not asked for spontaneous quotes and comments.

The placement into categories is only to help organize the themes; some of the content and comments overlap issues.

THE ASSOCIATED S We’ve never heard of THE ASSOCIATED. S Our household really doesn’t have much identification with the Baltimore Jewish community. As a result we have little familiarity with THE ASSOCIATED. S We usually contribute to associations which we have a relationship with. It’s never occurred to me to contribute to them.

General Comments Critical of THE ASSOCIATED S It’s a highly personal matter, I don’t wish to go into it. Let’s just say it was because of inside politics. S I don’t agree with the leadership of the organization. S It’s an egotistical organization that publishes names of contributors. It’s a small, or large, clique. S I think they try to cut corners, like most volunteer organizations. S Do not believe in exclusionary causes. S Not one of my favorite charities. S I don’t know what they’re doing or what they stand for. They’re not doing a great job… S We are not happy with some of their policies. S They’re too elitist and put stipulations on who they help. If a person needs help it shouldn’t matter if they are Jewish or not. They are discriminatory because of this. S They are only interested in the rich. S They have plenty of well-to-do Jewish people out there to support their needs.

S I have had some strange dealings with THE ASSOCIATED and they have never been nice to me. Therefore, I don’t see a reason to donate to them. S THE ASSOCIATED should have some outreach programs, like non-Jewish organizations do. They don’t seem to be a helping, giving type of organization. S The Federation needs to do more for the poor. Give more money to them.

Specific Criticisms of Allocations, Anti-Former Soviet Union Comments, and Anti-Israel Views S I don’t always agree with how they do things, I feel they work more for immigrants than they do for locally born residents. S They don’t take care of their own people. They take care of the people from Russia more than Americans. Russians who came over are given money all the time and they don’t bother with us. I have a daughter who was turned down for a scholarship because the Russians came first. Another thing is that Russians don’t have to pay anything back, we do. S I know a lot of people who are aggravated because foreigners receive more help than Americans and Americans should be helped first. S I feel the people who need help don’t get it. The people who aren’t needy get assistance.” S “… unhappy about how THE ASSOCIATED spends the money. S Too much spent on overhead, not enough for charities. S Too much goes to officials, not enough to actual charities. S I hear people asking for help but they aren’t getting it. They are begging on their knees and they aren’t getting help from organizations, including THE ASSOCIATED. S I heard about where some of the money goes, so I quit. S I wasn’t happy with some of their attitudes towards intermarriage. I understand why they feel that way but I don’t agree with it. S They don’t like Reform. Our synagogue will hang signs promoting that we need help. THE ASSOCIATED won’t do anything to help us. S THE ASSOCIATED helps the Owings Mills JCC, and won’t help the Park Heights JCC. S THE ASSOCIATED contributes to charities and organizations that do not support me as a woman or as a Reform Jew. S I don’t believe in where their money is going. There are too many extremist factions in Israel that are getting the money. Those factions will eventually destroy Israel. S Because some of the money goes to Israel. S I’d like to see Israel be more responsive to world opinion than they are.

Contribution Request Negative Comments S They were very obnoxious about it. S They dictate how much to contribute. I don’t like to be told how much to give. S I contributed once when I was called and asked. When called twice, I have solicitors take me off their list. When called second time from THE ASSOCIATED I was harassed so I told them never again. Also, THE ASSOCIATED dictates how much to give and I don’t like that.” S “They had expectations and I felt I gave from my heart. I was offended by their demands for me to give more. S I was a contributor in the past until THE ASSOCIATED started suggesting amounts. They should be grateful for whatever they receive. S I would give more but I don’t like being asked for specific amounts. S I usually contribute, but I didn’t in 1998. Then I started getting a lot of mail and a lot of calls about contributing, so I haven’t since. Also, I’m not sure where my money is going. S My husband got [angry] because they assumed he would double his contribution from the year before. S They asked for a specific amount and we prefer to be allowed to choose what we give. S I am disgusted by the total arrogance of the people I have had to deal with. S Because they always tell me to contribute a certain amount and I just don’t have the money they want. S I deeply resent the tactics they use to collect greater levels of donations and commitments from members of the Jewish community. S I stopped contributing to THE ASSOCIATED a few years ago when they became very insistent about the amounts required to contribute, specifically they wanted $100 from me and another hundred from my husband. After that I stopped giving to them. S A few years ago someone from THE ASSOCIATED called and asked my husband for a donation and he said, ‘OK’ and they said, ‘It would be a hundred dollars’ and he said, ‘No it won’t be’ and the person got very nasty and hung up. The next day I got a call and I said we got a call yesterday and my husband refused. They said, ‘What does that have to do with anything?’ and I said, ‘There’s only one pocketbook in our household’ and that person got very nasty with me and I refused to donate. The next day another person called and we were very angry and ‘let him have it’. I haven’t donated since then. This has happened to many people I know and I choose not to donate to them. S THE ASSOCIATED asks for too much.

THE ASSOCIATED and Jewish Education, Identity S Don’t feel they do a good job of helping Jewish people maintain their Jewish identity. S As a parent of children in Jewish Day School I am unhappy with the amount of money being used to help fund Jewish education. I read that THE ASSOCIATED is one of the Jewish organizations that contributes the least to Jewish education. S THE ASSOCIATED should help Orthodox schools more – the percentages are not fair or correct. S THE ASSOCIATED’s priorities are way out of whack. They have enough money to assure that every needy Jewish child could go to Jewish Day School but they don’t make it happen. I’m not giving them a penny until they focus on education. S THE ASSOCIATED should give more to the Jewish Day Schools if they want children in the area to grow up and marry Jewish. The tuition is extremely high. S The Orthodox community is trying to build a location for the Jewish boys school and tuition is high so we’re donating our money to this rather than THE ASSOCIATED. S I have two children who are married to non-Jewish spouses and I want to find assistance to send my grandchildren to Jewish Day School. My grown children had trouble keeping their Jewish identity because I could never find anyone in the community, Orthodox or otherwise, who could lend assistance. S I feel that money THE ASSOCIATED uses is very infrequently given to Orthodox Jews for education purposes. S THE ASSOCIATED had failed to recognize the importance of Day School education by its failing to give this program appropriate financial support. I will continue to NOT support THE ASSOCIATED in any manner until they change their financial prioritization. S We would like to see more funding for Jewish Day Schools because it is the root of the Jewish religion. S The money’s not going to the institutions I’d like it to go to, especially Jewish education.

THE ASSOCIATED Negative Experiences and Rejections Cited S One time I needed them and they were not there for me – financially and otherwise.” S When my mother was visiting from Israel, I asked THE ASSOCIATED to help or advise her on a non- financial matter. We were refused and not in a polite way. S I was left with a bad taste. My sister needed help and they refused to help her. Also, when the Soviet Jews came over, they were the first to be helped, but the American Jews didn’t receive any help. Our family got together and decided not to donate. S Only contributed to the food pantry services. I needed some assistance and information and no one would help me so I only contribute to the food pantry. S Years ago during the Depression my father asked for help and they would not help him. My father hated them. S They didn’t help me when I needed help so I wouldn’t give them a dime. S When my mother was ill, I had a bad experience with THE ASSOCIATED that left a ‘bad taste in my mouth.’ S My dad died at 102 and my mom at 87. For many years, they donated to THE ASSOCIATED; but there came a time when they could no longer afford to. When they became unable to give, THE ASSOCIATED stopped helping them. Also, the Russian Jews come here and receive housing and free

schooling. I, on the other hand, could only afford schooling for my kids a few days a week. I have nothing against Russian Jews. I just feel struggling Jewish families in Baltimore should be aided as well. S Because they gave to immigrants and not to the people who were here. They would not help me. S Several years ago, I went to THE ASSOCIATED for nursing care services for my grandmother. The services they offered to her were very poor, for example, the staff at the retirement center was untrained and didn’t seem to care about her needs. It reflects poorly on THE ASSOCIATED and since then I have not contributed to them. S I have had problems with them. They weren’t there for me when I needed them. S First, I have close Jewish friends at work and school who requested assistance from THE ASSOCIATED with family counseling and job services and they were turned down. Second, THE ASSOCIATED doesn't do enough to assist poor Jewish single mothers or other working poor in Baltimore. They seem more interested in helping affluent Jews. S Need to help a lot with care of elderly people. There is no help available to help care for sick parents. THE ASSOCIATED has offered no help. We didn’t know what to do to help care for our sick parents. Not everyone can afford to take care of his or her parents. Also, they give too much to immigrants. They should help people already in this country as much as the immigrants. They shouldn’t spend all of their time and funding on one cause. A lot of people are going to be senior citizens soon and there should be help available from the Jewish community to their children to take care of their parents. S When my mother needed some medical help THE ASSOCIATED would not help her with housing or medical help. S I’ve had two bad experiences with THE ASSOCIATED. First, several years ago my sister was in a bad marital situation and THE ASSOCIATED refused to help when we asked. Second, more recently, my sister had breast cancer and again THE ASSOCIATED refused all financial help. It was the Catholic charity that actually provided most of the help. Then, after we begged, the Jewish Family Service agreed to help with some of the bills that were paid until she died. THE ASSOCIATED did nothing. S I am Reform, not very religious. I had a bad experience with them before when I needed help. They help the Russians more than the people from Baltimore. S When my husband was sick we went to ask for some information and they treated us very badly. S I don’t like what they stand for. There was a time when we were in need and they turned us away. I guess they just felt like it. The Jewish Federation should help everybody. I don’t like the way they run things, what they do, what they stand for. They’re snobbish. It’s a political power thing.

Charitable Alternatives and Competition S My wife and I contribute to charities that focus on children – Jewish and non-Jewish. S I contributed to the Jewish Council of Washington because it was on a contribution checklist for retired Baltimore school teachers. THE ASSOCIATED wasn’t on the list. S My charitable contributions are deducted from my pay check and THE ASSOCIATED is not on their list of organizations. I’m a teacher and it’s purely an issue of ease of giving. S It’s just a small slice of a larger picture in context of contributions to a number of Jewish causes. People come daily to ask for donations and I don’t turn anyone down. S We have other Jewish charities we feel are priorities to give money to. S We prefer to give our money to Hadassah and we feel THE ASSOCIATED has enough money. S I contribute to Israel through many other organizations. S Since we had a limited amount to give to charity, we already had a closer connection to other smaller Jewish organizations. My general impression of THE ASSOCIATED is that it is too political, too big, and bureaucratic. S I just moved to a new residence so I don’t have a lot of money to give. I receive a lot of requests for contributions from charities, both Jewish and non-Jewish, so I have to carefully pick and choose those charities that I am very familiar with, not just vaguely. S Not that I don’t like THE ASSOCIATED, but they divvy up their contribution money to different charities and I would rather contribute to specific charities as I see fit. S I don’t like to contribute to broad based charities like THE ASSOCIATED. I like to choose where my money goes.

Non-Native Issues S I moved to Baltimore when I became a single parent because I felt it would be good to raise them in a large Jewish community, but the community is not helpful or welcoming to single parents or newcomers. My synagogue is helpful, but Baltimore is not as friendly as I thought it would be. S It took a lot of time for me to begin to feel this way. It’s only recently that I began to feel accepted. I only think that that is a result of some young adult programs, mainly sports like co-ed softball and volleyball where I met younger people and made friends. If you’re not born here it is very difficult to fit in. I think Baltimore as a city is like that, not just the Jewish community. I’ve considered moving several times because of this.