sign in sign up
<<
Home , British Jews, Ivor Crewe

British Jewry in the Eighties

A Statistical and Geographical Guide

by Stanley Waterman and Barry Kosmin Preface RESEARCH UNIT BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH Since its inception in 1965, the Statistical and Demographic Research Unit has devoted itself to collecting and Woburn House, Upper Woburn place, , WCIH OEp of the Board of Deputies of British Jews analyzing statistical data and monitoring trends among the Jewish population of . With the limited resources at its disposal and its reliance primarily on administrative data from communal bodies, the Unit has been able to study primarily only demographic trends. These have been supplemented Executive Director: by several local studies in Sheffield, , Hackney, and Redbridge which allow Mrs. Marlena Schmool wider perspectives on socio-economic and sociological issues.

Despite the patchy nature of the data available and the deficiencies due problems, is now Research Consultant: to methodological and dehnitional we believe that there sufficient material available to justify a publication which attempts to bring Dr. Stanley Waterman together our knowledge of the contemporary Anglo-Jewish scene. The Research Unit's experience of the constant demand for up-to-date information about the size, structure and composition of contemporary British Jewry, from the media, academia, students, community workers, and the general Jewish public shows Research Committee that there is a need and a market for this type of data'

Mr. Eric Moonman (Chairman) The maps and graphs for this publication were drawn at the London School of Economics and Political Science. We thank Professor Derek Diamond Dr. Lionel Kopelowitz, J.P. for permitting one of us wide use of the facilities of the Department of Mr. Victor Lucas Geography at LSE during an extended stay in that department between 1984 Mr. Jeffrey Pinnick and 1986. Thanks to Jane Pugh, Alison Aspden and Gary Llewellyn, who drew the maps and graphs as well as several others that did not make it into this publication. thanks to Gary for putting up with all the minor changes Mr. Allan Conway A special of mind near the end. Professor Ivor Crewe Mr. H. Diamond, J.P. We trust that this publication will not only prove of practical help and Prolessor L. Finkelstein interest, but will stimulate further research activities in order to fill the many Mr. Arnold Gould gaps which still exist in our understanding of contemporary British Jewry. Professor S. J. Gould Mr. S. S. Levin, O.B.E. S. W and B.A.K Ms. Caren Levy May 1986 Dr. V. D. Lipman, C.V.O. Mr. Spencer Nathan Mrs. Ruth Winston-Fox, J.P.

O1986 Board of Deputies of British Jcws rsBN 0 907104 09 6 I,IST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

DEMOGRAPHY Page DENTOGRAPHY Page 1. The changing population of British Jewry 1850-1985 . . . 6 i. Burials irncl crematiclns under Jewish religiclus auspices l9g0-19g4 . . 9 2. Population pyramid of British Jewry, 1915-1919 . . . " l0 \'ital statistics British marriage trends, 1961-1984 13 2. of tsritish Jews, 1980-1993 . 9 3. 4. Anglo-Jewish marriage trends by grouping, 1961-1984 . . . . 13 3. Comparative agc srrLictures: British Jewish population and E,nglancl end Wales" \975-1919 ll 5. The impact of Divorce Law Reform 14

4. Synagogue marriages b.v syrragogue grouping l9g0_19g4 t2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 6. Jewish population distribution in the L,ondon itrea. 1984 . 21 5. Population pi'c,jection ibr the Jewish elderly l5 1. Jews as a percentage oftotal population by London Borough, 1984 24

6. British .lews in lsrael . l7 8. Jews as a percentage of total population by Ward for the L

L]CONOMY AND SOCIAL SERVICES 14. Geographical development of the Llnited Synagogue 36 15. Regular synagogue attenders in Redbridge by age and sex, 1978 . .. 38 i3. Jervish soeial service provision in the London area, l9g4 .. 48 16. The Jewish educational experience ofRedbridge Jewry by age and sex 11 14. Volunteers in rhe London area Jewish social services. l9g4 49 17. The impact of Jewish education on synagogue attendance in Redbridge 13

ECONOMY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

18. Socio-economic grouping of Jewish populations . . . 15 19. Social class composition of local Jewish populations 11 POPULATION SIZE The graph shows a rapid increase in the Jewish population of the U.K from 1881 until the outbreak of the Great War, and again in the decade prior to the Second World War. The zeoith of the Jewish population was reached in the early 1950s, when the figure was estimated at 430,000, although later research suggests that this estimate was too high. Either w&Y, the One of the difficulties in understanding the structure of British Jewry population has been in decline since then and it currently stands at around is the lack of exact statistics. As the census does not ask a question on religious 330,000. If the 195i figures were correct, this would indicate a decline of almost affiliation, except in Northern Ireland, any figure given for a Jewish population 25 per cent injust over 30 years. must be regarded as an estimate. The difficulty in arriving at reasonable estimates has been compounded by problems in determining who is a . The graph also shows that the ratio of Jews in London to those in the while in the past the community was relatively homogeneous and concentrated, provinces has ranged between 65 and 70 per cent. The decline of London today it is more pluralistic and there is an increasing trend towards alienation Jewry has been somewhat less rapid than for the country as a whole, but that and outmarriage from the community. The halachic (Orthodox Jewish legal) is probably because the generally accepted countrywide estimate for the early definition, based on the maternal line and orthodox conversion procedures, is too high and because London has gained population at the expense increasingly fails to encompass all the effective Jewish population. 1960s of the provincial centres.

References: 11,21 Population

::+:::::::::::::l:l::j::i::::::i t, f l I I S n J g W f y 400,000 iiffil*- London Jewry

300,ooo

100,oo0

0 '90

Figure 1. The changing population of British Jewry, 1850-1985

Nonetheless, several attempts have been made to estimate the Jewish population in the past. These estimates show that the growth of British Jewry has been the result of several waves of immigration, the largest of which occurred between 1881 and 1905. It is the descendants ofthis influx of immigrants who iorm the majority ol'British Jewry today. BIRTHS AND DEATHS TABLE 1

BURIALS AND CREMATIONS UNDER JEWISH RELIGIOUS AUSPICES The most widely used method for estimating the Jewish population of the S-year average United Kingdom is based on mortality. Using such a method, the figure was 1982 1983 1984 1985 estimated for l9l5/79 at 336,000, with a margin of error of 30,000 on either 1980-1984 side. In the absence of an official census, the traditional method for estimating Total Total Total Total Total the Jewish population in Britain has been to apply an age-and sex-specific Orthodox 3890 4028 3816 3869 3905 mortality rate per thousand persons to the annual number of deaths of the given (51.70/0) (83.1E0) (82.2E0) (78.3%) (80.60/o) population. To this end, the Research Unit of the Board of Deputies of British Jews collects statistics on the numbers of persons who are buried or cremated Reform 492 469 522 580 551 under the auspices of the various synagogal bodies in the United Kingdom (10.30/o) (9.70/0) (11.10/o) (11.70/o) (11.4E0) (Table 1). The Research Unit also collects annual data on synagogue marriages and occasional data on circumcisions. The data on circumcisions allow Liberal 381 349 311 496 388 calculation of the total number of births and birth rates. In addition, synagogue 6.0V0) (7.20/0) (6.7E0) (10.0E0) (!4%) provide an indication of the number households marriage statistics of Jewish TOTAL 4763 4846 4715 4945 4844 remaining in the population.

Table 2 indicates that the Jewish population is ageing. The death rate is high. The difference between the number of births and deaths is in the order So:lrce: Research Unit statistics, I980-1985 of 1,300 persons per year. This is explained partly by the low rate of synagogue marriage which is about half of that expected if every Jew married another Jew synagogue. Local studies show that the average number of live births in a TABLE 2 to a woman married in a synagogue is 2.1. Nevertheless, the ratio between births and marriages suggests an intake into the effective Jewish population of children born to parents not married in a synagogue, a reflection of the fact that milah 1980-1983 (circumcision) is possible where religious marriage rites have not been performed. VITAL STATISTICS OF BRITISH JEWS quarter We estimate that about a of all Jewish births are in this category. * Jewish population estimate 330,000 Average number of births 3,432 References: 20 - 35 Births per mille 10.4 Average number of deaths 4,761 Deaths per mille 14.4 Average number of synagogue marriages r,204

Persons marrying in per mille 7 '3 Ratio of births to marriages 2.9

Sorrrcc: Research Unit statistics. 1980-1983. n llrrsetl on Reference 2l AGE.SEX RATIOS TABLE 3

Figure 2 displays the proportion of males to females by age group for the COMPARATIVE AGE STRUCTURES period I975-1979. This provides the background to the data revealed in Table 3, and shows a top-heavy, ageing population. Moreover, the sex ratio is unbalanced, Age Group Estimated Britisb and Wales Difference possibly as a result of migration factors. The narrowing base of the pyramid Jewish Population Population 1975-79 indicates the declining nature of this population. The relatively large numbers 1975-79 in the cohorts aged 55 and over point to the much larger gross numbers earlier o/o o/o in the century, especially when allowing for factors concerned with survival. 0- 9 t2.7 14.0 - 1.3 l0-19 14.5 15.8 -1.3 Table 3 compares the age ratios of the estimated Jewish population with those of the general population for the same period. The Jewish population 20-34 20.8 2l.l -0.3 shows an excess for all the cohorts over 55 and a dehcit for all those born 10.7 I 1.5 -0.8 after 1920. 35-44 45-54 tl.4 1 1.8 -0.4

1 1.8 11.3 0.5 Reference: 77 5s-64 65-74 I 1.1 9.2 1.9 75 - 84 5.8 4.3 1.5 85 and over 1.2 1.0 0.2

Thousands Thousands

NOTE The ligures were estimaled tor '10 year cohorts, except for the age group 20-34 which were lor 15 yearcohorts.

Figure 2. British Jewry by age and sex, 1975-1979

IU ll

= = MARRIAGES Figure 3. British marriage trends, 1961-1984 120 - l Marriage remains the basis of family formation amongst Jews and I 110 :aj: : -:.i' historically has been the major mechanism for recruitment into organized /) - -' Anglo-Jewry. We have already noted a serious deficit in the Jewish marriage r: /) -- rate in that only half of those Jews born in the later 1950s and early 1960s 100 who would statistically have been expected to marry in synagogues in the early 1980s actually did so. Figure shows that a sharp decline in synagogue 3 90 t--..-- marriages occurred in the period 1912-1982. The graph shows that during this period, the decline in synagogue marriages was sharper than for other types of O BO marriage. By the 1980s, the overall number of synagogue marriages was low, O atjust over 1,100 annually. 70 Figure 4 shows that this decline was felt across the spectrum ofsynagogue O) groupings. The most serious decline was among the mainstream Central Orthodox X 60 congregrations: part of their decline is a direct result of the increase in Right- o) Wing (ultra-Orthodox) marriages over the same period. cc t---- -I 1 962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 Table 4 illustrates the relative stability between the two main synagogue groupings, the Orthodox and the Progressive (Reform and Liberal). In the Total marriages (England and Wales) First marriages (England and Wales) 1980s, the Progressive wing accounted consistently for 21-22 per cent of all - synagogue ceremonies whereas the Central Orthodox figure has fallen by 2-3 ...... Synagogue marriages (Great Britain) All religious marriages (England and Wales) per cent. 120 Figure 4. Jewish marriage trends by synagogue grouping' 1961-1984 The causes of the gap between the expected and actual numbers of Jewish marriages remain unclear. Possible factors are emigration of young people, civil 110 marriage among Jews, non-marriage, new alternatives to conventional marriage, or outmarriage with a gentile partner. Until adequate research has been under- taken on this topic, no intermarriage or exogamy rate can be calculated. 100

Reference:30 90 TABLE 4 SYNAGOGUE MARRIAGES BY SYNAGOGUE GROUPING 80 5-year average 1980-1984 1982 I 983 1984 1 985 70 Total Total Total Total Total () Right-Wing 100 100 104 ll0 101 Orthodox (8.60h) (9 qah) (8.8E0) (9.5t)h) (8 8V0) ll 60 Cc ntral 785 750 '772 736 (67.2'h) r() Orthodox (67.6Va) (65.4a,/o) (64.4q4 (64.3010) rtr Sephardim 36 30 45 49 54 '50 (3.80/o) (4.3E0) (4 7Va) G.luA Q.7Eo) .l) Refbrm 183 175 188 179 169 f) t (ts.7%) (15.8E(, (1 5.90/o) ( I 5.5qa) ( 14.80/o) l.iberal 65 55 1l 72 84 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 (5.6E0) (5.00/a) (6.0q)) (6.20/a) (7.3E0) r;ynrgogue Marriages (Great Britain) Registrar General's Returns (England and Wales) TOTAI, 1,1 l0 r.1 80 I, 153 I,144 -F.* j l t!i! ,i lrii:::tr-:t {G!Eci brr!?ii-r! ^.-.*ii;iLiim ail.j Liileidi iLrirjdi t;;ioi;i iii,ut"aLt: Rrsc:rich i irrjl 51x11rt,rt i q80- I 985

tl DTVORCE THE ELDERLY

The sharp fall in the absolute number of synagogue marriage ceremonies The fluctuating size of the Jewish age-cohorts means that the size and and in the rate of synagogue marriages among the Jewish population has been structure of the elderly population will change over the next 20 years. It is for accompanied by a rise in the number of divorces. the elderly population that we have the most demographic information. Given the current age-sex mortality rates for the Jewish population, which have Figure 5 shows that the rate of divorce among Jews has risen steadily decreased significantly, especially for Jewish males (at one time above average) over the past three decades. The rise has not been as dramatic as that for population projections have been produced (Table 5). These figures make no divorce among the general population when there was a sharp upward surge allowance for migration. in the divorce rate following the reforms in the Divorce Law after 1970. The Jewish divorce rate in 1980 was more than double that of 15 years earlier. The data show the problem of catering to the needs of a shifting balance No real difference can be observed in the divorce figures across the spectrum cven in the elderly population, between the old and the very old. Given the of synagogue groupings among the Jewish population. declining size of the population, the proportion of the elderly will rise. At the same time, the proportion of the population aged 20-65 (the economically Several recent studies have shown that only half of those Jewish couples active) is expected to decline from 56 per cent to 49 per cent. Should the rate who marry in a synagogue and subsequently divorce obtain a gel (Bill of ol emigration rise, the economically active group can be expected to shrink Divorce) from a Beth Din (rabbinic court). On this basis, it is estimated that lurther whereas national projections indicate a stable economically active in the mid-l980s, about 400 Jewish couples were divorcing annually and that lropulation around 57 per cent over the next two decades. some 450 children were likely to be affected by family break-up each year. Extrapolation from these figures suggests that one Anglo-Jewish child in six will have experienced family break-up before the age of 16. l{r:lcrcnce:57

References : 25. 26

260 Rate ol Decrees absolute granied in England and Wales 240 Rate ol Gittin written by ihe London Beth Din TABLE 5 Gittin rate adlusled to account lor numbers of London Ashkenazi Orthodor marriages eleven years earlier

POPULATION PROJECTION FOR THE ELDERLY 1985-2005

1985 1995 2005

1970: 100 .....i-;'-n 65 - 74 36,000 33,750 30,750 75-84 18,750 24,7 50 23,250 80 85 and over 4,000 3,500 4,7 50 60

40 TOTAL 58,750 62,500 58,750

Ilrrrr'e Rclcrence 57 Year rig::re 5- The imnsct of Divorce Law-Reform-

t< i4 IJ MIGRATION TABLE 6

BRITISH JEWS IN The 1983 lsraeli population census revealed that the British-born population in Israel more than doubled between 1972 and 1983, as it had previously done A. Israeli Census between the census of 1961 and that of 1972 (Table 64). This is due to a Increase continuation of the high rate of migration () from the mid-1960s and the British Born over previous relatively high rate of successful absorption from Britain (Retention Rate) as census (Table compared with other Western countries 68). t96t 2,790 1972 5,558 +2,768 The Crude Retenti

Relerence: 27 llcl'erence: 29 TABLE 7

CENSUS STATISTICS ON BRITISH-BORN JEWS ABROAD TABLE 8 British-born Difference between Jews Censuses ISRAELI-BORN IN BRITISH CENSUSES 1971-1981 AUSTRALIA 1961 5,193 Israeli-born Increase over r97 t 5,663 + 470 in Britain previous census r 981 5,006 - 657 1971 5,170

CANADA 1981 7,106 1,936 (37.5V0) 196r 6,539 1971 8,005 +7,466 198 I 12,140 +4,135

ISRAEL 1961 ? 7C1 1972 5,558 +2,768 1983 \3,352 +1,794

RHODESI.\ 1969 433

SOUTH AFRICA 1970 5.109

U.S.A. (Mother-tongue ) r970 19.451

10 TABLE 9 RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBI/IION

JEWISH POPULATION ESTIMATES, UNITED KINGDOM,1918 & 1985 (in centres with populations of 1,000 and over in 1985) The Jews in Britain are predominantly an urban group. Even more than 1918 1985 that, they are distinctly metropolitan. Figure 1 showed that the ratio between Jews living in Greater London to those in the provinces is approximately 2:1. (ireater London 186,500 20 1,000 This is confirmed by communal returns which show that London accounts for Contiguous Home Counties 6,000 18,000 66 per cent of the burials, 68 per cent of synagogue membership and 72 per 29,500 30,000 cent of synagogue weddings. Greater Manchester Leeds 15,600 14,000 given The geographical distribution of the Jewish population estimates in Glasgow 7,500 I 1,000 Table t has been calculated mainly from mortality statistics. The most reliable 2,500 10,000 estimates for 1918 are based upon the military fatalities in World War I. The Brighton modern distribution utilizes additional sources of spatial data including other Birmingham 6,600 6,000 local surveys, organizational memberships and ethnic demographic indicators, Liverpool 1 1,500 5,000 name counts. Southend 750 4,500 The overall statistics relating to the residential distribution of British Jewry Bournemouth 3,000 has its in this century can be seen in Table 9. The London area maintained Southport 2,000 dominance and its two-thirds share of the population. The provincial bias towards the old manufacturing centres and coalfields has lessened in recent years. The Cardiff 900 2,000 main beneficiaries of the shift in the distributional patterns of the Jewish I{ull 2,700 1,500 resorts. Outside London, only Manchester population have been the coastal Newcastle-upon-Tyne 2,800 I,500 has maintained a size sufficient to offer a wide communal infrastructure. Nottingham 900 1,000 The real change in Jewish settlement patterns this century has not been Sheflield 2,300 1,000 large scale regional migration, but rather the local migration, from inner city Edinburgh 2,800 I,000 settlement towards the suburban periphery of the major cities, are-as of hrst Reading 1,000 or movement to larger centres within a region. Luton l,000 lllackpool I,000 Refcrences: 8, 1 1, 48 Rest of U.K zt,tso 14,,s00

U.K. TOTAL 300,000 330,000

l! JEWS IN LONDON TABLE 10

JEWISH POPULATION IN THE LONDON AREA (Private Households) London constitutes by far the largest concentration of Jews in the United Kingdom. As the major port of entry into the country during the waves of BOROUGH Jewish Jewish Total Jews as a immigration around the turn the Households Population Population Percentage of century and later, and as iapital city and Total international metropolis, Estimate Estimate of the London was and continues to be a magnet for Jews. (19E4) (1984) (r98r) PoPulation

Table l0 and Figures 6 andT (Page 24)portray the distribution of Jews within GLC-TOTAL 14,U5 197.400 6,608,598 3.0 Greater London and the immediately adjacent sections of the Home counties. 3.0 The estimates are for 1985 and were calculated using an ethnic name method Inner London 29,225 72,000 2,425,630 City of London 385 800 4,701 17.0 which has proved useful and accurate in the past. The Jewish population l9g5 4,865 11,200 161,098 7 -0 estimates are compared population. Camden with data from the 1981 census of The Hackney 'r,020 19,700 179,529 11.0 table and the maps present the data at the scale of the 32 Boroughs and the Hammersmith & Fulham 8s0 2,000 744,616 1.4 City of London. Haringey 2,170 5,700 202,650 2.8 lslington 1,07s 2,600 15'.1 ,522 1.7 Chelsea 2,150 4,700 125,892 3.7 The distribution of the Jews is heavily biased towards Kensington & northwest London. 500 244,143 0.5 The Borough with l-ambeth 1,300 the largest number of Jews is Barnet with approximately Lewisham 525 1,400 230,488 0.6 48,000. As with the city of London, Jews constitute almost 17 percent of the Newham 650 1,600 209,128 0.8 total population. The northwestern sector is fleshed out in the Boroughs Southwark 435 1,100 209,735 0.5 abutting Barnet - Brent, Harrow, camden and the city of westminster, which Tov,er Hamlets 3,1 40 7,500 139,996 5.4 Waldsworth 1,095 2,800 252,240 l.l together add another 45,000. The population also constitutes part City of Westminster 4,365 9.600 t63,892 5.9 of this sector. This makes the total Jewish population of northwest London over 100,000. Outer London 45,620 125,400 4,182,968 3.0 Barking 6s0 1.800 148,979 t.2 Barnet 1 7,850 48.200 290,197 16.6 In addition to northwest London, there are two further sectors in which Bexley 350 1,000 2t4,355 0.5 Jews are well represented. In north London, Jews constitute approximately Brent 5,125 14,400 215,238 5.7 l1 p_er cent of the population in Hackney. wth the addition of the Boroughs Bromley 550 1,500 294,526 0.5 0.8 of Haringey and Enheld there are around 30,000 Jews in north London. The Croydon 850 2,400 316,306 750 278,677 0.8 third sector is centred on the Borough Redbridge Ealing 2,100 of in the northeast and is Enfield 1,940 257,154 2.1 the smallest 5,300 of the three sectors, all north of the Thimes. There is an overflow Greenwich 450 r,200 209,87 3 0.6 from Redbridge into southwest . llarrow 3,665 10,300 196,159 -i.l I laveri ng 6s0 1,800 239,788 0.8 l.l The traditional Jewish concentration in the East End, centred on the l{illingdon 940 2.600 226,263 llounslow 700 198,938 1.0 Borough of rower Hamlets has declined to under 1,900 10,000 and today comprises Kingston-upon-Thames 750 2.000 131,236 1.5 only approximately 5 per cent of the total population in the Borough. Merton 6s0 1,600 I 65,102 1.0 Redbridge 6,'700 19,400 224,731 8.6 Some 34 per cent of the Jewish population of Greater London is located Richmond-upon-Thames 1,1 50 2,900 157,304 I8 L l in Inner London Boroughs, 60 per cent in outer London Boroughs and about Sutton 700 1,800 167.547 Waltham Forest 1,200 3.200 214,595 L5 6 per cent in immediately adjoining areas of the Home countiesl in northwest Kent, north Surrey, southwest Essex and southern Hertfordshire. Just over l0 North Kent 100 300 per cent ofthe London Jewish population is in areas south ofthe river. North Surrey 900 2,600 Southw€st Essex 1,050 3,000 Southern Herts 2,500 7.200 4,550 References: 47 , 49, 85, 93 ADJACENT AREAS OF 13,100 HOME COUNTIES I,ONDON AREA TOTAL 79,395 210,500 ln Boroughs south of the Thames there are 21,000 Jews representing 10.6 pcr c!.111 ol' thc total Jewish population

22 23 South Hertfordshire Figure 6. The three maps in Figure 8 (Page 26) illustrate data collected for three London Boroughs with substantial Jewish populations - Hackney, Redbridge and Barnet. ttre data for Hackney relate to 1971 when the Jewish population comprised almost 14 per cent of the total population of the Borough' The data for Redbridge were collected as part of the work for the Redbridge Community Survey and relate to 1978. The Barnet data are for 1984.

The three maps indicate that when the scale ofthe investigation is magnihed to the Ward level within each Borough, the concentration of the Jewish population is even more marked than appeared on the map of Greater London. Thus in Hackney, Jews were concentrated heavily in the north of the Borough where in two wards, Springheld and Northfield, Jews comprised around 40 per North Konl cent of the total population. In Redbridge, there was a similar situation where' a in the two central wards of Barkingside and Clayhall, the proportions of Jews \o in the total population were approximately one third. O r.* In Barnet, a slightly different situation is in evidence. Two centres emerge in this Borough. one consists of the - - Finchley 48.2 complex in the south, where in six wards - Garden Suburb, Golders Green, 30.0 Hendon, Finchley, childs Hill and west Hendon - the proportion of Jews in the 15.0 The 0 miles 5 total population varies between two in five to one in f,rve in that order. 5.0 is centred upon Edgware ward, where the proportion of Okms 0.5 r".o.rb ioncentration Jews in the total population rises to over 44 per cent.

At this scale, although large residential concentrations are evident, attention Figure 7. should be drawn to the fact that in no political unit in Greater London or anywhere in the United Kngdom are Jews in a numerical majority. The vast majority of their neighbours are thus non-Jewish.

l{cference: 48

l'igure 6. Jewish population distribution in the London area, 1984

't5 as a percentage oftotal population, by London Borough' 1984 10 I'lgure 7. Jews

5

3 0 miles 5

1 0km 5 o

24 t< {

JEWS IN MANCHESTER =9GCtE zzoo rd Figure 9 portrays the distribution of Jews in the largest centre outside o presented mainly serve as a ! London. The map of Greater Manchester is to @i c6 comparison with the previous maps of Greater London. The highest proportion lc OJ90 of Jews to total population is in Bury, where Jews constitute approximately -oi 8 per cent of the population. The adrninistrative division of Greater Manchester oaLrJ masks the Jewish settlement pattern. The concentration centred on Prestwich - oat Whitefield is located in the southern section of the Metropolitan District of Bury, trI whereas the Jews of Salford are located in the northeast of Salford Metropolitan o6o -s, District. Similarly, the distinct communities of south Manchester are spread out r.rJ b across the southern parts of the Metropolitan County and in adjoining areas E(n of Cheshire.

o tD >0_ -o o; ooo6\ Nevertheless what stands out in comparison with London is the relatively ? small size of the Jewish population reflected in the low proportions overall o PsxSA6rv q) in the Metropolitan Districts. (!CD OO6o\sss-:-: c ON-OO ,lt: o o o o- .1"

Jews as a o/o

s fis-o zil s;'lfc (n

Figure 9. Jews as a percentage oftotal population in Greater l\{anchester, by Metropolitan District, 1981 Figure 8. Jews as a percentage of total population, by Ward for the London Boroughs of Hackney (1971), Redbridge (197g) and Barnet (19g4) 26 27 SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP UNITED KINGDOM Male Synagogue MembershiP 1983 ( excludes the Greater London Council ) Membership of a synagogue is the most prevalent symbol of identity for British Jews. All contemporary studies in this country have tho*n that synagogue membership covers the vast majority of identifying Jews. The formation of a sy_nagogue or congregation does not necessitate a building or even a minister. 6500 Membership is a voluntary act and requires payment of meinbership dues. 4000 In 1983, there were 328 congregations in 295 synagogue buildings with a total male membership of 78,899 and an independent iemale memb6rship of 2000 30,527.

Reform and Liberal synagogue membership is based largely on a system of family memberships. This produces definitional complicatio-ns ior intergroup comparisons. In the face of the imprecise nature of the female membership hgures (not all the independent female members represent separate households, Orthodox & Sephardi { and some households headed by females might not be counted at all) male membership is a more reliable indicator. Furthermore, most independent female Progressive { membership is among the orthodox grouping. Eighty-eight perient nationally and 90 per cent in London of independent female rnemlership is central !. -/ Bellasl orthodox. This also suggests that the age structure of the various synagogue groupings is different since independent 'r female membership is still largely made v,1 up of widows. Male membership therefore covers a wider age spectrum and its t-."1 demographic characteristics are more representative of the umtiut.o population.

, Recent figures suggest a more synagogue-oriented population as the size of Anglo-Jewry declines. This trend may be reinforced ty ttre rise in female membership, since one of the most outstanding findings of the Redbridge study was the higher religiosity and commitmeniof Jewlih women as againit Jewish men.

References : 52, 53, 79

TABLE 11 MALE SYNAGOGUE MEMBERSHIP BY RELTGIOUS GROUPING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 1983 Grouping Congregations Malemembership percentage

Right-Wing Orthodox 35 3,492 4.4 Central Orthodox 221 55,606 70.5 Sephardi i3 2,120 2.7 Reform 36 12,030 15.3 Liberal 23 5,667 7.2 F-1, --ioo TOTAL 328 78,899 100.0 grouping in the \nlrrnF \, \l l'ionre l0- Distribution of male synagogue members by religious United Kingdom (except Greater London) 1983

z6 zv hovinces Nevertheless, it is in Greater Iondon that there is a wide choice of type of synagogue, and so its distributional pattern is much more indicative of As in the case of the residential population, synagogue membership is taste'. Moreover, in London, figures are available Over a lOng period. divided between london and the provincial 'consumer centres irr an approximate 2: I The trends identified for the national pattern are even more strongly featured ratio. In the provincial communities, the small size of thi local Jewish in Figure 11. The Right-Wing Orthodox have {oubled their proportion of the populations tends to limit the choice of synagogue. only Greater Manchester total since 19?0, and the Reform have increasbd their proportion of the total can compare with London in the range of synagogue groupings available locally. by more than a third. Despite the general numqrical decline in male synagogue The average size of syxagogues in the provinces (154 malJ members) is leis membership in Greater London, both these groups have shown substantial than half the average for London male e29 members). The central oithodox gains in members. These London figures agaid show not only that the Central grouping which represents the historical Anglo-Jewish tradition tends to dominate brthodox losses outweigh total losses, but alsq that the Sephardi grouping has the provinces with 80 per cent of the male membership. suffered considerably. Figure l0 (Page portrays 29) the 'Orthodox'and 'Progressive'distributions in These indicators show that the Righr\hng Orthodox and the Reform the United Kingdom outside London. ,orthodox'are under the heading all groupings are increasing. The increases are opcurring both among the Jewish congregations that make up the and its afliliates, Independent population in general and within own streams of , representing Orthodox, their and Sephardi synugoguei. The demographic increase and recruitment from other groups. Nevertheless, Central 'Progressives' comprise the various Reform and Liberal institutioni. Orthodoxy maintains its commanding position. Despite the increasing challenges from 'left' and 'right', its numerical domination of Anglo-Jewry's synagogue The largest concentration of synagogue members outside London is in scene will continue for the foreseeable future. Manchester. Two other traditionally large communities, Leeds and Glasgow, also stand out. The next tier comprises those centres with approximately 2,000 male synagogue members and includes Liverpool, Birmingham, Brighton, and Relerence: 52 Southend. A third tier includes Bournemouth, Hull, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Cardiff.

An interesting feature is the almost complete absence of progressive synagogues among Male Synagogue Msmborship (thousands) the small communities of the North. Even in those communi- 50 60 ties in which there are Liberal or Reform syna3ogues, these rarely comprise more than 15 per cent of the synagogue-affrliated population. This is in contrast with the London area and the south of England. Brighton, for instance, has almost equal numbers of both streams and several of the smaller communities in the outer Ring of the London Metropolitan Area are almost wholly hogressive. Ultra-orthodox congregations are also rare outside London, existing only in Greater Manchester and . Likewise, provincial Sephardi congregations are found only in Manchester, with a unique Sephardi synagogue in Ramsgate.

References: 47, 52

Greater London Right Wing O.thodox Contral Orlhodox The synagogue-affiliated male population for Greater London is shown in Figure ll. The bar-graph gives greater detail than was given for the provinces, showing six types of synagogue from the Rightwing orthodox to the Liberals. It should be pointed out that the statistics represented graphically are only as accurate as those collected. Though multiple m\mbership is small (2 or 3 per grouping London, cent), a rough estimate by the Membershio secreiary of the United Synagogue Figure 11. lMale synagogue members by religious in Greater suggested a 15-20 per cent overcount for tnat organization alone. As there isno 1970-1983 standard means of collecting the data, nor of updating them, all the indications point to an overcount for all the groupings.

30 31 IOmr@ inr<@ g{ oo-o: o o o >o iJ---- J dyo; *s9Ei In terms of distribution of synagogue membership across London, the large grisc seg€;' o 6oo{= .:.?f)l g; g i A 3 Ol T^*< j number of synagogue-afliliated Jews in Barnet is the most outstanding feature, i€a: i F T o:@ o JO with more than twice as many persons as the next most numerous borough, o g-- the City of Westminster. Four other Boroughs - Hackney, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Brent - all have male synagogue-affiliated populations of over 4,000. At the other end of the scale, four Boroughs - Barking and Bexley in the east and Islington and Southwark in Inner London - have no synagogues and therefore do not appear on Figure 12 although all are known to have residential Jewish populations. The figures for Westminster and Tower Hamlets, in particular, are inflated by a continuation of membership in a specific synagogue long after migration out of the area. This occurs because of the burial society function of synagogues or because of traditional family attachments.

The United Synagogue, representing mainstream Orthodoxy, is the largest single synagogue organization but its distribution is by no means uniform throughout Greater London. In areas of older settlement, such as Tower Hamlets and Hackney, its membership comprises less than 25 per cent of all male synagogue members. In Tower Hamlets, the vast majority are members of the Federation of Synagogues, whereas in Hackney, it has fewer members than either the Federation or the small Ultra-Orthodox congregations. Where the United Synagogue appears strongest is in outer suburban Boroughs such as Harrow, Brent, Haringey, and Enfield, and in southern Hertfordshire, in all of which it comprises over three-quarters of the male synagogue population.

The Borough with the largest number of Jews, Barnet, also has the most HF heterogeneous synagogue population, with substantial numbers in all the synagogue groupings. Here, the main challenge to the United Synagogue comes from the Reform Synagogue movement. This pattern is repeated in the more affluent areas such as Westminster, and in Camden where the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues is strong.

It is interesting to note that the Ultra-Orthodox synagogues are confined to two Boroughs, Hackney and Barnet, and in fact, to small areas within each of these. Only for this synagogue grouping is there a high correlation between place ofresidence and place ofworship.

Relerences : 47 . 48. 52

N b o

o b o

f irrrrro I ? Dislrihrrlinn nf mqlo swqonono Greater London, 1983

?') SYNAGOGUES

llr,' l':rr( rr ()l cstlblishment of synagogues provides an overview of the rlr'rr'1,Inrt'rrt ,l .lcwish conimunities in London. The accompanying set of maps r I rlru rt's I .] rrrrtl I 4. l)ages 35 - 37 ) provides inl-ormation on constituent synagogues ,l llrc t lnitcd Synagogr-re in 1984. It is restricted to this single synagogue otgrtttizrttion bccause it aione has data readily available in a useable form. Figure l.l shows the synagogues by size of current membership and period of maximum € rncnrbcrship. o g3 o The set ollour hisrorica I maps (Figure 1.4 ) provides information on the period ol'tlundation ol each prior ol the individual synitgogues. to l92l most ol the t-rl-I synagogues founded rvere close to the cenrres in either the East or west End. € The beginning of an outward suburban movement is evident as t're community m moved into St. John's wood, wllesden, Tottenham, and towards the northeast. o- Ilowever, { the most noticeable aspect of these data is the inability to identify 0) a distinct scctor;rl bius. o

In the two interwar decades, egll l the northwesterly bias ol the population oooa o becomes evident for the tlrst tjme. Although a northerly movement towards 1a 'orEg= Enfield and Southgate can be observed also, it is the strengthening ol the o'e9 --t communal labric in wllesden. Golders Green, Hendon, Finchley, and wembley OL OO ds that is most remarkable here. the movement continuing out as far as Edgware :-= 6 rJ* in the 1930s. The fbllowing two decades. 194l-1960, represent a period of infilling in the outer portion of the northwestern sector, with the establishment of synagogues in Stanmore, Kenton, Pinner, and in particular.

The most striking fealure ol the map covering the past 25 years is the almost total absence newly-fbunded of synagogues. During this period, only a OJN .,ail total of six new synagogues were lounded. More than anything, this illustrates (o T ;; the absolute numerical decline of the Jewish community in general, and of ! o o* o J A< members olthe ljnited S,nagogue in particular. @ 16 cD;x @ o -- ! a @ c The figure s ftlr current nrembership and maximum membership underline 3 the sectoral and zonal nature of the community's distribution. The decline in the inner rreas is quitc evident. The largest synagogues are all in the outer suburbs - Ilford, Stanmore, Edgware, Finchley, Hendon, Kenton, and cockfosters - all with over 1,000 male members. Those in the inner suburbs nnnoff o of the northwestern sector number between 200 and 1,000 male members. roNNC oooo= Moreover. the small number ol Jews in those sectors outside the three major B ? ??g sectors, nr:rrthwest, N(oAr north, and northeast, is highlighted by the size of the r(o@=-t synegogue nrernberships. most of which are under 200. 0(o,036 .d-ttoJ rDo The suprenracy oIthe outer suburbs, particularly in the northwestern sector oJ is further underlined by the decline in memberships. Almost all the synagogues, : with the exception of the outermost, had achieved their maximum membeiship L^f'--^ lnon --.^r .--^,^ -r--,, r ^--:---- ^-L^--L:- rl"^ f I-irarl -,,-k^-.' .,iii!.,!i'!'.';iiiCiiiii in ijeCiine Oy iniii diile. i"igure i3. uurrent size and periods of --lllaillrrulll -llltrlllualtrlrl, ur^f rrrq R,:i" r. ,r. . i i Svnagngtte

1.1 i5 Pre 1921 1941 - 1960

Frnchley

O km 10 Epsom 1921 -1940

1961 to date Cockfosters

A

, uprders ^|o(enhaa

Figure 14. Geographical development of the United Synagogue

36 SYNAGOGUE ATTENDANCE JEWISH SCHOOLS

eclucation have been There is little hard sociological data available about synagogue life despite A number of counts of schoolchildren in Jewish are subject to many qualifi- the overwhelming preponderance of synagogue membership as a form of Jewish attempted in recent years. The results obtained systems upon which the y affiliation and identification. Findings from the Redbridge Jewish Survey of cations because of the nature of the administrative can be observed' The rate of 1978 suggest that the level of regular (weekly or more) synagogue attendance rely. Nevertheless, a broad pattern of development probably riserl in terms of the is very similar to that of regular church attendance in outer London, at around eniolment and exposure of Jewish education has This is becsuse thc number 10 per cent of the population. However, the regular synagogue attenders show proportion olyoung Jews in the system at any time. is less than the a unique age and sex bias. Jews who go to synagogue are heavily weighted if pupirs has fallen since 1967 by only l0 per cent, which side of'this incrc'ase towards older males and 'barmitzvah boy'. of course, the minority synagogue estimated fall in the Jewish child population. The other groupings such as the ultra-orthodox or the progressives would have differint is the much larger school component in Jewish education' profiles that shown to in Figure 15 because of their particular religious education now accounts for only hall the pupils orientations and outlooks. Part-time supplementary whereas in 1967 it accounted for over two-thirds. l'his has bee n brotlght ebout by a push towards day schools by the orthodox groups. As a resltlt, 38 per (Checler) education now takes place under the a1rspices of the Relerence:79 ."nt of part-time Progressive movement. The 8l per ccnt of pupils who receive their Jewish edltcation under Orthodox auspices is ciose to the Orthodox-Progressive split in synagogrrc mernherships and marriage ceremonieS. However, it must be renlemirered that there are many childien from Progressive and unaffiliated homes on thc rolls ol Jewish all of which, bar one, are nominally af filiated to Orthcdox irrstitutions. Age group day schools, provision available to Jewish children varics greatly 70+ The actual choice of live. In London, a smaller propoftioil of the children 60-69 according to where they schools, but this again varies widely by;rrea. As is comntou in 50-59 attend diy communities, there is a greater proportion tlf pr"rpils enrolled in 1ll 40-49 Diaspora typei of Jewish schools at the primary level than there is at 1l.re secondar'1 or 30-39 post-Barmitzvah level. 20-29 15 -'19 10-14 Releren,:es: 54. 56 0-9 TABLE 12 3020100 010203040 1967-1982 Regular Synagogue Attendance ENROLMENT IN JEWISH EDUCATION 'Iotal Pre-School Day School Supplementary School

24.843 3 5.811 Figure 15. Regular synagogue attendance by age and sex, Redbridge 197g 1967 I ,986 9,0 r 5 (s.5%) Q5.2%) (69.30/a) ji.908 1911 13.059 20.849 t982 1,158 14,188 1,1.982 30.218 (3.8E0) (46.90/o) (4e.3qh) Source for Table l2:S. Della Pergola and N. Genuth, (1983) Jewish Education Attained in Diaspora BY SVNAGOGUE Communities. Datafor 1970s. Research Report Number 2. (: Prolect DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL ENROLMEN'T lor Jewish Education Statistics, lnstitute of Contemporary Jewry. The Hebrew GROUPS 1982 Un iversity.y. Orthodox 24.295 Progressive 5.753 (8l.0lr') 1lr).0t),r)

to JO JEWISH EDUCATION Percentage AND PMCTICE N5o, oooo

Figure 16 shows the type of Jewish education received by responde;rts il;lili the Redbridge in Jewish. Survey by age group. The data oJv i.*.0 exposure to certain tvpes of institution and cannot piovide any detaiii ;; ;" quutitv o. the intensitv of the yei education received. it hiehlie-hts ilrl hri-tlut the whore history of Anglo-Jewish education this century has been marked by the differing quantity and quality available to difrerent generations or engo_]!*s. To these generational differences must be added the further .o-pii";?;;of change in itititil readiness ofaccess due geographical to location ofboth J"ft""i, the Jewish populations. All these.factors imply that the figures p..r.ntra iust""0 be inter_ preted with care and N with due allowance made for the i"nueoc. oito"at factors. N Nevertheless, @ the data are valuable coming as they do from the largest- ever survey of the Jewish education of a representitive engto-J";;h popuration, and covering 1,200 individuars of both sexes a and all ug"i. tr thus attows us to O measure the changes in Jewish education over time- as they have affected different generations in the population. @

outstanding feature . fne _which emerges is the consistent difference between I the education of mares and females. Laige numbers of Jewesses in every age 5 group have received o no Jewish educatio-n whatsoever. c".tuin-ott.r features are also evident. The difference ofeducational experience betweenthe generations in a population which is 93 per cent British-born is Another prominent l;;;;; very wide. o feature is the impact of worrd w;, ";ii ;;'il" disruption caused to Jewish life and education. o This is evroeni amoni tt oe" group @ iiiiirii 40-49 years, i.e. those born in the years 192g-1931,,t...ifi.-pioportion" of the uneducated rises to its highest foiboth sexes. o ;ririri since the wartime years o there has been a consistent improvement in the >+ total coverage. rl The current level for those aged 5-9 suggests'ttutit. pattern o of almost total male exposure to some form of Jewish education will continue as will the slow decrease in the number of uneducated females. o T< O'r ,P J< Reference: 6 ter 79 gfr{F{q E :. oO 6 s6 a atot a 3o 'c<=. J r O*O* \ m 3sgigt E + a asdB i I E ;;€ee e ggo o o

Figure 16. The Jewish educational experience of Redbridge Jewry, b,y age and sex

AU 4i F

_ The Redbridge Jewish Survey provided a unique opportunity to ascertain the impact of education on religious practices ano uehaviour. Figure l7 attempts to measure the interrelationship between the type of Jewish edication a person received and their pattern ofsynagogue attendance. Regutar attendance Positive impact Each ffi ffi type of education was measured in relaticn to the proportion of regular attenders ('more than once a week'and'on Festivals and moit Sabbaths'fand non-attenders ('not at all'). The overall impact of a certain type of education No attendanc" Nesative imoact ffi was the balance between the two extremes, i.e. between the observant element I and the alienated. It can be seen that certain types of education have more impact, both positively and negatively, than otheri. 1. 5. Part-time SYnagogue Classes until 13 Years course, 2. Jewish DaY SecondarY School of home background and numerous other forces come into play 6. Private Tuition in such a situation but the results are nevertheless interesting r- ln" patterns 3. Jewish DaY PrimarY School present. 7. Adult Education they The two extremes are quite clear. A yeshiva seminary) lreiigious 4. Part-time SYnagogue education has a very positive relationship with regular tvnugoiu. uttendance, 8. No Education " Classes beYond 13 Years whereas no education at all has the most negative correlation.-

. . It_is not suggested that the Redbridge pattern is typical of the whole of Anglo-Jewry but one practical policy finding to emerge is the indication that teenage synagogue classes and adult education are at least as effective in their outcome as Jewish day schools. In fact, it is the Jewish secondary school which breaks the pattern of increased impact with education at higher ag"r. rni, result is (')lu particularly (g important because it contrasts with the Jewist p.irn"uiv school result which has c an overall positive outcome. considering trtut ,".onouiy eoucation o) in a Jewish o day school usually follows a primary day Jchool education the results o are disturbing, particularly considering the dispropbrtionate p...upitu resources o-0 I that are expended on this type of education compared to the other fbrms of Category religious education.

It will be interesting to monitor the effects of the current expansion of day school education revealed in Figure l6 in order to see if a similar pattern FigurelT.TheimpactofJewisheducationonsynagogueattendanceinRedbridge is observed among cohorts ofrecent Jtudents.

Reference: 79

42 43 OCCUPATIONS Percentage of PoPulation '100 20 40 60 80 Surprisingly _ little is known about the socio_economic make-up of British Jewry ,middle apart from common assumptions about its class'nature Redbridge Jewry relative prosperity. and (1 978) There is no oflicial collection of socio-economic data on Jews. Indeed, in Britain, no income or direct expenditure statistics exist which relate to the whole ofthe general population. Sheffield Jewry Local surveys have concentrated on the crassi- fication of the Jewish (1 975) samples in terms- of the orri.i"i tyttem, i.e. by employment, occupation, industry, and social class. In terms of actual occupations the only information available relates to Hackney Jewry the number of ethnic name counts (1971) or locar su*.yr. oi spite of a dearth of accurate statistics we do know that the occupationai"ou;;;1" #ucture of the Jewish communitv h.a1.cha_nee! rapidlv in the past ;;;;;;;"; resuu of its very fast upward mobility by Britiih siandards.'The tey ld th-is mobility Greater London been education has which has transformed the sons of Jewish rabourers into (1e81) professionais and small businessmen, for it must be remembered that the main mass.of.Jewish immigrants came to Britain in the late ninetlenttr and early twentieth cenruries 80 100 as unskilled and skilled workers, u"o piouio"d sweated 20 40 60 labr"rur, particularly in the clothing industry. There are a few professions Groups . where, nationally, Jews are found far in excess Socio-economic of^ their expected numbers. Among these are mediiar practitioneis, accountants and university teachers.. Somewhit surprising, perhais, is the fact that the most popular one of Jewish occupations is thai.oithe'London taxi oriver. estimated It is 1,2,(13) 3,4 5 6 8,9 7,1O 11 12,(14) 16,(17) that perhaps a third of London cabbies are Jews. other occupations which have above average Jewish representation d.entistry, pharmacy' are raw, crothing' estate agency and property generally. Jewish 1,2, (131 Employers and Managers shopkeepers have declined in number- over the last few decades with the 3,4 Professional workers demise of many small family businesses. on the other hanJ, it..e tus t"e' a. movement by the younger generation 5 Intermediate non-manual workers into new areas of employment such as the expanding caring professions. occupations with Jewish;;a;.;;;r"rentation 6 Junior non-manual workers are unskilled and manual jobs (SEGs g,9,7,10, l l). 8, 9 Foremen, supervisors, and skilled manual workers A major characteristic of Jewish employment is the tendency towards Personal service workers and semi-skilled manual workers self-employment. Fifty-five per 7,10 cent of maiesin nogware tr'il3),^zr per cent in Hacknev (1971), 11 Unskilled manual workers and,44 per cent in Sheffreld (l9ig);";;;'il;, catesoiy. on the other hand there_ (Farmers) is a crear gender bias; in n"iruriae"-itr*e- --- were ten 12, (14) Own account workers, times as many Jewish males as femalds who were serr-emproyiJ. 16, (17) Members of armed lorces, (Other) one indicator of the improving socio-economic profile of British Jews can be found in Figure 18. This is the Jiwish population orH".tn"l-es an ageing and declining Inner London Borough, it repiesents the roots of most suburban Figure 18. The socio-Ecoqomic Grouping of selected Jewish populations Jewish populations. In this regard, the marked similarity or iu.t""y Jewry,s socio-economic distribution_and that of the general population oici"ate. illus.trates the generalry t_onoon above-average s6cio-economic prorrle oi the other Jewish populations illustrated.

Referenee:78

44 +J SOCIAL CLASS Percentage ol Jewish Population 60 B0 100

Social class is the means by which the census classifies a population into Older National broad categories so that each is "homogeneous in relation to the basic criterion Sample 1961 of the general standing within the community concerned", in this case. the 'occupations concerned' being those of the heads of household. The only Younger National national data available on Jews relate to the social class structure distribution Sample 1961 for 1961 which is based on an analysis of a sample of death certificates. 1. Protessional

Edgware 1963 2. lntermediate occupation Figure 19 compares the social class.distributions of four Jewish populations in different areas at different times, as well as two national sampLes-for Jews 3. Skilled occupation constructed by Prais and Schmool. The latter samples represent Jews of a different Hackney 1971 4. Partly skilled generation, as the hrst is based on deaths registered in 1961, while the second 5. Unskilled was an estimated distribution of the live Jewish population in 1961. In a comparison of these two samples, three factors stand out. First, there are no Shefiield 1975 unskilled persons making up Class V in either sample. Second, the younger population has less people in the skilled and partly skilled occupations in classes III and IV. Finally, there are more people in the intermediate and Redbridge 1978 professional occupations in the younger generation, with class I more than doubling its proportion. Figure l9 shows that the 1961 younger national sample is more representative of all the local Jewish populations, except for Hackney, which is similar to the older national sample. Figurelg.TheSocialClasscompositionofselectedlocalJewishpopulations The upward social mobility of the younger suburban Jewish populations is largely a function of the increasing diversity of work opportunities in the liberal professions and the expansion of education and training since world War II in the United Kngdom. Approximately 40 per cent of Redbridge Jewry is representative of the true "middle class", with the rest mainly in skilled occupations. Few can now be found in the traditional manual working class occupations with which the immigrant East End Jews were associated at the beginning of the century. Since Redbridge is our only recent large suburban Jewish population data base, of greater consequence is the similarity between the social class make-up of Redbridge and the 1961 younger national sample. This suggests that Redbridge may be typical of contemporary British Jewry as a whole.

Relerences: 74. 78

/a AU 4i SOCIAL SERVICES TABLE 14

The FUNCTIONS OF VOLUNTEERS AND THEIR WORK socio-economic profile of British Jewry is of practical importance since the organized community relies for the funding ."rigi;, educational and social service Functions Volunteers infrastructure on the post-tax contributions"rit, of the Jewish public. The obligation to support the disadvantaged and the dependent 931 community in the Fund raising has been accepted since cromwellian times when th'e-resettlement of the Jews .,u was made contingent on them not being .harge-io the parish,, General Helpers 833 or the state. As a result, a laige social service provi'sion il?;;;. up which Drivers 515 has expanded even under the Welfare State. Organizers /Admi ni strators 377 By the 1980s, the . Jewish social services in the London area had a combined budget of over f,20 m.illion House Committees 150 and employed over 2,000 persons. iable 13 sets out the type of social service provision provided to sections of the Jewish Counsellors 108 public. over 1,600 persons Trained are housed iy the social servlces ano g00 by associated housing 679 associations. various seivices ur" urro p.ouided to several All other functions thousand elderly at centres or by domicilary services in.ruoiig ,oriut *orke.r. TOTAL 4,022 All these social services are heavily reliant on a volunteer input (Table l4). Again, there is an Settings economic factor involved. These people n."iit. free time and other resources in order to carry out their uoru"iuiv iastl."were we to add to, the 4,000 volunteers Residential Homes/Hostels 73t in social services, several thousands more who give of their services youth to organizations and religious bodies, we would Day Centres 549 have the picture of the vast amount of individuat p"ironut inuotu.m"nt ttat the organized 4'16 Jewish community both requires and achieves and the very high Clubs proportion ofadults who are involved in a voluntee r capacity. Offices 93 Reference: 57 Non-specific 2,1',13 TOTAL 4,022 TABLE 13 JEWISH SOCIAL SERVICE PROVISION IN THE LONDON AREA 1984 Source: 57 Homes Homes for the elderry til;"i"r,,r", Homes for the mentally handicapped 6 ,13 ,tffJT:y other estabrishments ll iffi:ily ^ 44 short stay RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 33 1,621 Sheltered Housing 774 units Group Homes 7 37 residents Day Centres for the elderly t4 3,295 members Kosher Meals on Wheels 4,65A meals per week

)ource; J / ao 49 1850-1950' BIBLIOGRAPHY (11) LIPMAN, V. D. (1954) A Sociat History of the Jews in England' Watts and Co')' llondon: of the Jewish tr2\ LIPMAN, V. D. (1968) "The rise of Jewish suburbia"' Transacrions gti v otu^e XXI' p p' 7 8 - I 03' J ew i s h H i s t o ricZi sii i i'v ii Ei nd' The Jew in the Modern obviously, any bibliography ( P. n. und r. nETNHARZ: (1980) ___ . in a work of this nature must be selective. , I J1) "'-'MENDES-FLOHR, '-wirta we have tried to include ' iort: University Press)' only those works that have appeared-in recent years A& (Londot" Routledge & in scholarly (14) NEWMAN, A. (197;t ih, u'i"d Svnagogue 1870-1970' and serious literary journals and which u.. Jir".iiv relevant to the material presented Kegan Paul ). here. Some sections are stronger than others but that is in the nature.of (15)oLSovER.L.(1980)TheJewishCommunitiesofNorth-EastEngland.]755-1980. things. In addition, we have includedsome material in certain (Gateshead: AshleY Mark)' sections which deal primarily England' (London: with Jews outside Britain. This is because the issues (16) POLLINS. H. (1982) Eionomic History,of the Jews in and problems dealt with in these items are similar to or have ."l"uun." Associated University Presses Ltd )' for the (Londort: Macmillan)' study of Anglo-Jewry. (17) RUPPIN, A. (1934) The Jews in the Modern Wortd irgi wessnRSTEIN, B. (1979) Britain and the Jews of Eur^2e 1939-1945' A. HISTORICALBACKGROUND (Oxford: Clarendon Press)' 1740-1875' (19) WILLiAMS,' ---iMunitt.ster: B. (1976) The Makingof Manchester Jewrv' Jewish scholarship and research has traditionally been strong on history. Manchester University Press)' The works bv Ruppin (1934) and Mendes-Frohr and Reinharz (t9sb) give some wider historical perspectives to the student of Jews in Britain. t_ip-un', (1954) B. DEMOGRAPHY work on the social history of Anglo-Jewry from the mid-l9th to the mid_20th century has been recognized MoreisprobablyknownaboutdemographictrendsJhal3nvotheraspect by scholars in many disciplines as a work full of the Board of Deputies collects insights and is, sadly,long print. of modern engto-reJry.^T'n. i"t.urch Unit of out of The books by Aiderman (19g3), pollins These have been used, along (1982), Gartner (1973), annual returns o" lr*irrr-J.aihs and marriages. Newman (1976) and wasseistein (1979),;ll deal wirh tout..s, to study Jewish population specific historical aspects of with other indicators from various British Jewry with the emphasis on the last 150 "oii..t.O were carried out bv Trachtenberg years. There are several trends in the United Ki;;;;;. Earlier studies local histories extant, such as olsou., (19g0) for the (1968; i973). Haberman' Northeast, E. Krausz (1964) K"n,o-wits"tr (ii:6),andbyprais.and Schmool on Leeds, A. IGausz (19g0) on sneffieto, ano iiqfij, to indicate current population Hyman (1972) on Ireland. Kosmin and Levy tf Sg3-i us"O motiutity statistics The only work in this vein by a piofessional historian a surrogate for Jewish is that by (1976) ,ir"; irf"t."tion gi.u""O-ito--Outu on circumcisions as wlliams on Manchester Jewry, on" of tn" results of which throws further light was an (P*it u.tO S.ttmoot,l'glO; Kosmin and Levy' 1985) impetus for the establishment of the Manchester Jewish Museum. L;ttil Kosmin population tr.nor, u, Jo ,*riihg. statistics (Prais and^schmool,.1967; on In addition' and waterman, 1g86)] aird ai;"i; figures (Kosmin, 1983; 1984). on nuptiality and fertility over (1) ALDERMAN, G: (.1933) The lewish Community in British politics. Kosmin (1982) tras c6ntributed a further study (Oxford : ). .,A the modern historical Period. (2) CARRIE& J.W. (1967) Jewish proletariat". In M. Mindlin and C. Bermant (editors), Exptoralion. (London: narrie anO Roiftifg. (3) GARTNER,.L. (1_973) The Jewish Immigranr in England Ig70_Igt4. (20)GLIKSON,P.(1983)..Selectedbibli-ographvl972-1980:UnitedKingdom..in (London ( u d-i e s- i n Jew i s h : Simon Publications). u. o. sctrmeii'p. eiikr;; ;"; i.i. boito. editors ), st ( York: KTAv' ) (4) HYMAN,_L. The Jews of lreland. (London: The Jewish Historical briogropnv'Tu'i"viii isti-t 980' pp' 25'7 -266 New .(197.1) society patterns ofEngland). (21) HABERMAN, s., B. A. riosrutn and c. LEW, (1983 ) "Mortality \!r '-'-- applications for the size and structure (5) KOSMIN' B.A.- (1975) "Some statistical techniques and sources for research into ' oisiitiih i;;19?i-79; iniigt'rr and siatisticat Society. Part 3. cXLVI. the social history of Anglo-Jewry". ln A..New.ma! (editor). provincialJewry in of British r"riir;i'ioiir'oiiiiiinoyat Victorian Britain. Conference held at University Crillege LbnOon, PP.294-310. lvly 6,1975. M. (1936) "Estimate of the Jewish p-opulation'of \L''Q2\ ----KANTOROWITSCH, -london jii,tnal XCIX' (6) KOSMJN, B.A. (1982). "Tncalism_and pluralism in Brirish Jewry 1900_g0", tsii-igil';'' of the Roval Starisricalsoclery Transactions of the Jewish Historfcal Socie4; of England, XXVii, pp. i t t - tZS. Part II, pP. 372'379. In (7) KosMIN, (1285) "population and-politics in modern ", (23) KOSMIN, B.A. (1978) "Demography and sampling problems" 9.A' \LJ' --""it. et The Jewish Quarterly,32 (l)pp. 6_9. b.tiitltit tiiitor), Cimmunautes Juives (1880-i,978)' sources pp' (8) KOSMIN, B.4., S. W_ATERMAN and N. GRIZZARD (1986).,Jewish deaths Methodes de Rlecherche, (Paris), 258-270' in the Great war as an indicator of the rocation;il;;"4;o;iuir-t.u.tur. B.A. (1982) "Nuptiality and.fertilit-y patterns of British Jewrv (24) ---KOSMIN, - (editor). of the Jewish community in Britain", Immigran'ts ona ltinoiiii)i,' rssb_ rsao:'Ailimmifini tiansition?". in: n. A. Coleman 5. (forthcoming). iiiosripni ;i iiiiiiiii, iia Minority Groups, (London: Academic Press ). (9) KRAUF_Z, A. (1264)fhe$eld_J_ewry - on a Community. pp.245'261. .Commentary- Jews:Some (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University press). (25) KOSI\iiN, B.A. (1983)-srir "Measuring divorce among i J-ew i s h D e m o gra p h.v I 9 li l, /1OI I(PAIISZ""".ic;,"u;a;;li.;i'ii'fr [' r'1 O(,4\ I ^-)- I-.,.-.. ra^ u:-t^--. - --r o ccnt em poraiy" ish iirti stic s,' - Pa p ers n ;;i'6';iJid;?i;;i"v{Ei;i;Ihi.'*""' PP. 199-214'

JU 5l (26) KosMIN, (1984)^Divorce B.A. in British Jewry 1970-r9g0: An Investigation. (London: West_Central) (40) JARET, C. (1979) "Recent patterns ofChicago Jewish residential (27) KosM_IN, pp. B.A. and c. LEW \19g4) Jewish emigrationfrom the (.lnited mobility", Ethnicity, 6, 235-248. Ki ngd o m. (London : Board (41) (1983) ecology ofJewish populations; a paper,Wp/2/94. of Dep uti;s of ii;ii;fi i#i. iy;;iilc ' KLAFF. V.Z. "The urban comparative analysis", Papers in Jewish Demography l98I' (28) KOSMIN, B.A. ..Jewish (Jerrisalem: Instiiute of Contemporary Jewry), pp. 343-361' and C^._LEW, (19g5) circumcisions-iiii and the demograp hv of B ri t i s h Je w, ig a s - (42) MESINGE& J.S. and A. J. LAMME III (1985) "American Jewish ethnicitv", v ti s);, iii ii" tiiin ii"of s o, i o r o s,, 27 , PP. 5'tl . in J. O. McKee, (editor), Ethnicity in Contemporary America, (29) KosMIN, B.A. (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt), pp. 145-168. and S. wATERMAN (19g5) ".Britain and Israel: Reciprocal flows of Jewish migranrs... Tne'je:iiih 0;";;;;;i;';\(i;, ;;. ):ii. (43) NEWMAN, D. (1985) "Integration and ethnic spatial concentration; the (30) KosMIN. commu nity", Tra n sa ctio ns, B.A. and s. WATERMAN (19g6) "Recent rrends in Anpro- changing distribution of the Anglo-Jewish Jewish marria ges", The Jewirn touiiit it sor';;i;;.';;,"' ' "'"'" Institute of British Geographers, (N'S.), 10, pp. 360-375. pp.49-58. (44) VARADY, D.P., S.J. MANTEL, C. HINITZ-WASHOVSKY & H. (3 I) PRAIS. S.J. and ..Sraristics (1981) and dispersion; a case study of M. SCHMOOL ilg6:.) on Jewish marriages HALPERN "suburbanization in Grear Britain: re0r - jiiiir Cincinnati's Jewish population", Geographical Research Forum,3, pp. 5-15. le6s', rni n,iii iiii'itiiii',\. or. ,or-rro. (32) PRAIS' s.J. and M. scHMooL (196g) (45) WATERMAN, S. (1981) "Changing residential patterns of the Jewish "The size uno si.uctui. ittt pp.4l-50. Anglo_Jewish pop ula rion I 960 _ I community in Dublin", lrish Geography, 14. i6s;i ri ; i;;; ; i;r-,; i i ;'c "i o t o gr, lo' PP' 5-34. ; A6\ WATERMAN, S. (1983) "Neighbourhood and community in residential (33) PRAIS, s.J. and decisions in the Dublin Jewish communily".lrish Geography, M.iglflr4o_gL (1970) "statistics of Milah and the Jewish change birth-rare in Brirain", The iewrsh Jirn"t oisiriiiii,li]pp. 16, pp. 55-68. (34) rtz-rs:. Jews in PRAI'' s' J' and l1:g-cqMqoL og73) "The fertilitv ofi.*irtr iu.iri., A7l' WATERMAN, S. and B.A. KOSMIN (1986) "The distribution of in Britain, 1971,', The Jewisti ioirnat of s"iiiii:i,,"ii, the United Kingdom 1984", Geography,7l,pp.60-65. (35) ..Esrimate ip. it's:ib+. TMCHTENBERG_H.L. {1933) of the Je;ish poprfution tf (48)' WATERMAN, S. and B. A' KOSMIN (1986) "The Jews in London", London in 1929". Journar of the novat sriiiitiiais;'.,'J0.'lbi{, The Geographical Magazine, 58, pp. 21-27 . pp. 87_98. (49) WATERMAN, S. and B.A. KOSMIN (1986) "Residential change in a (36) WATERMAN s. (r 9s5) population: some comments on a recent paper "{-n9-te on migration of Jews from Dublin,, The rewish middle-class suburban ethnic Journat of Sociologt,2T (11, pp. yljj. by Newman", Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, (N.S.), 11, (forthcoming). C. GEOGRAPHICDISTRIBUTION (s0) WATERMAN, S. and B. A. KOSMIN (1987) "Ethnic identity, residential concentration and social welfare: Jews in London". In P. Jackson (editor), Ttt" central question here is how best to describe the distributional pattern Race and Racisrz, (London: George Allen and Unwin). (forthcoming). of^ Jewish- households. Are Jews segregated from the g.r,..ui poputution, are they simply concentrated in certain urear oi spatially integrated? How are the patterns changing? D. RELIGION AND EDUCATION practices Klaff (19s3) has placed tittle has been written about Jewish religious or Jewish education the issue in general perspective. outside the U.K, the topic has been addressed in the United Kingdom. The article by Prais (1974) is almost unique in being by Driedg"r"uno ctrurch (r974)in canada, by Jaret (1979), Mesinger and.Lamme a survey of Jewish education in Britain. The 1981 chapters by Prais and Chief (rgt5j varadv and tris associaies (l9gl) in the United States. Goldsrein's (l98tipap"r"n; Jakobovits both attempt to discuss some religious trends in the community. o"ur, *tth i;il;";i^!rutio., within (1972) (1983) represent two efforts the U.S.A. in more general terms. The studies by Prais and Kosmin and Levy to make use of synagogue statistics to reveal patterns of Anglo-Jewry. For the British Isles, Jackson's book contains small sections of Jewish Newman (1985) attemptr i:ttlt-tj, t" the probrem of distribution for the U'K and London bur runs "r"iize (51) JAKOBOVITS, I. (1981) "An analysis of religious versus secularist trends into oirrt.uiiies witi-scate-(; \rr;;".-an and Kosmin, 1986)' water.Tag's in Anglo-Jewry, especially during the past hfteen years". In: S. L. .I,ipman t*o ttuai.rliqgt; tgtr) are based upon field and V. D. Lipman (editors), Jewish Life in Britain, 1962-1977' pp. 33-48. research in Dublin, while the-seri"s orariictls by Waterman and Kosmin (52) (1983) Synasogue Membership in the United the geographic distribution discuss KOSMIN, B.A. and C. LEVY of the lewsin itre unit"o Kinsdom /983. (London: Board of Deputies of British Jews). London in particular. ri"go".lig"*"r"r and in (53) PMIS. S.J. (1972) "synagogue statistics and the Jewish population of Great Britain 1900-1970", The lewish Journal ofSociologt, 14,pp.2l5-228' (37) DRIEDGER, L. ..Residential survey of-Jewish education in London 1972-1973", and CHURCH, G. (1g74) segregation (54) PRAIS, S.J. (1974)..A sample instirutional and l6, pp. 133-154. completeness,,,' Co ria ii)' n;;;;? i;;;W ; ;;," The Jewish lournal ofSociologt, Anthropologt, I l, pp. 30_52. (55) PRAIS.S.J. (1981) "Polarizationordecline?Adiscussionofsomestatistical (38) GOLDSTEIN. s. (r9g2)..."population finding! on the Community". In: S. L. Lipman and V. D. Lipman (editors), movemenr and redistribution among Am e ri can I ew s,'. Th e Life in Britain 1962-1977, pp. 3-16. J ew i s h J o u r n a t ij'S o; tiii s,,- i { iil.;;. ;:;i: Jewish i39i iACKScii? A. (i.97j) Semi-derached Londin. (L";;;;, (56) TAYLOR, D. (Editor) (1984't iewish Educaiion 196ii1984- (London: iewish Unwin). c.';ii!irj.","0 Education Development Trust).

JZ 53 E. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL WELFARE L Angto-Jewish PoPulations The (I9t4) bibliography in this section is divided into four separate sections. \J(57I I COMMUNITY PLANNING AND RESEARCH COMMITTEE t '-"^^i;i;;il Analysis ol l_ondon The first section contains several works that have appeared on'specific Anglo- R.poiti+i, A Demographic and Socio-economic Jewish populations. The book by Freedman (1955), particuiar Area Jewry. London. uno i.r the chafter survival in a l,ondon i! Neustatter, represented pioneering (5g ) CROME& G. (1g74) "Intermarriage and communal 1n !v efforis to paini a picture of englo------Journa! of Sociologt, l6' pp' 155'169' Jewish society .uui,tU" .'lhe iewish immediately after world war II, although later research.-has (1955) A Minority in Britain, (London: vallentinc questioned (5g) FREEDMAN, M. (Editor) some of the accuracy of the latter. An updaied version has been Mitchell). provided by Kosmin (1982). The books edited by Gould and Esh (1964) and (60) GOULD, S.J. (1984) Jewish commitment: A Study in London' (I'ondon: Institute by Lipman and Lipman (19s1) are both derived from conferences to discuss ol Jewish Affairs). (6t S. (Editors) (1964',t Jewish Life in Modern Britain, issues in Anglo-Jewish society. Krausz's work on Edgware dates from the early ) GOULD. S.J. and EsH, 1960s and was the earliest sociological (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul)' examination of a British suburban ((\)|GRIZZARD.N.anrtP.MISMAN(1980)..InnerCityJewsinLeeds", Jewish population, while cromer (r974) -- looked at the specific problem of inter- -- fnit*ish Journal qf Sociologt,22,pp'21-33' marriage in wembley, Grizzard and Raisman (1990) eiaminei the problem of (63)KOKoSALAKIS,N.(1982)Ethni-c-Iden.tityand-Religi-o-n.-Traditionand"- -- - residual elderly Jewish populations in Inner'Leeds, and Kokosaratis (tqgz) iiiis, in'Liiriioit irrry. (washington' D'C l Universitv Press of studied cultural and religious change in Liverpool. America). (64) KOSMIN, B'A. (1981) "The.case for.-the local perspectivei!-t$) ltydy Kosmin (1981) has for long made a strong case for local studies. of contemporaii Stititl't Jewrv" In: S' L' Lipma-n-a!9 V' D' Lipman _ In support pp' of this thesis, he carried out a study of Jews in Hackney ieOitoisl, Jewish Life in Britain, 1962-1977' 83-94' based on Small Area Minorities Statistics from the 1971 census (Kosmin (6s ) KOSMIN. B.A. (1982) "The Jewish Experience"' Part 4, Ethnic and Grizzard,, tsls1. This was followed Minority Lxperience' lne upen by a community survey Sheffield (Kosmin, and Community Relations: Block 3 - of Bauer and Grizzard, 1976). This Course E354' study was the precursor UniversitY, of a major study of Jews in the London Borough of (55r 8.A.. M. BAUER and N. GRIZZARD (1976) Steel city Jews, Redbridge, KOSMIN.--- - the publications from which are listed separately. The paper by iloitOoni Board of Deputies of British Jews)' Kosmin and de Lange (1980) dealt with why Londonis Jewi prefer fiving in (67)KoSMIN.B.A.anTIN.GRIZZARD(1975)JewsinanlnnerLondonBorough---- the metropolis to medium-sized towns. - ioiirerr (London: Board olDeputies of British Jews)' \vv/(68) KOSMIN."-"^'L"riA-ontT.* B.A. and D. de LANGE (1980) "Conflicting-urban id^eologies: The four publications emanating from the Redbridge study are listed in thi Meiropolitan preference of London's . pp. chronological order. The Redbridge study is the only compiehensive community Iews", The London'o*nJund Journal, 6' 162-l'1 5' (69) (1968) "The Edgware Survey: demographic results"' I/re survey to have been carried out on an Anglo-Jewish populition and we owe KRAUSZ. E. much Jewish iournal ofSociologt, l0' pp. 83-100' of what we know about modern British Jewish soiiety to this one study. The (70) (1969) Edgware Survey: occupation and social class"' rationale and methodology KRAUSZ. E. '"fhe are laid out in de Lange ind Kosmin (1979). The The Jew'ish Journal of Sociologt, l l, pp. 75-95' results from the survey were divided into social demography (Koimin, Levy (71) KRAUSZ. E. (1969) "The Edgware survey: lactors in Jewish identification"' and..Wigodsky, 1981),_work and employment (Kosmin and Levy, 19g1'), and The Jewish Journal qf Sociologt, 1 1' pp' 151-164' finally, the volume on Jewish identity (Kosmin and Levy, 19g3). o2\LIPMAN.S.L.andv.D.LIPMAN(Editors1098||JewishLifeinBritain 1962-1977, (New York; K G. Saur Publishing Inc') The statistical analysis of Jewish populations is hampered in countries (73)NEUSTATIE&H.(1955).Demograp-hicandotherstatisticalaspectsof (editor), A Minority in Britain, pp. 55-133. such as the United Kingdom and united States by the failure of the census Anglo-Jewry")in vr. ri.io-"un (1975) "The social class Structure of Anglo- to enumerate the Jews as Jews. This necessitates the development of methods 04t PRAIS. S. J. anrl M. scHMooL, jewry, of Sociologt, l 6' pp 5 - 1 5' to estimate the size and location of population 1 961", The Jewish Joirnal ' the Jewish initead - a problem Communiyt' (London: West- which encompasses that providing (75) WOLKIND, J. (1985) London and its Jewish of an adequate working definition of who Central). is a Jew in modern British society. U. Redbridge Many of these methodological issues have also been dealt with in the u. S.A., (7 DE LANGE, D. and B. A. KOSMIN- (197.9) mmunitv resources for a particular 6) ^Co in the use of ethnic names in Jewish social research (see, for example commtunity sumey. (London: Bdard ol Deputies of British Jews)' Massaril 1966; cohen, Himmelfarb, Loar and Mott, tggti varaoy ano oT I KOSMIN. B.A. C. LEVYand P. WIGODSKY (1981 | The Social Demography of -19811 Board ol Deputies of British Jews)' antel, 1981; I-azerwitz, 1985). The hazards of misusing such methods have been Redbridge Jewry. llondon: (7R (1981) The Work and Employmenr of Suburban laid out_.in pa-pers by Kosmin and waterman (19g6)ind Abrahamson, (19g5). ) KOSMIN. B.A. anrl C. LEyy ,Iews. (London: Board ol Deputies of British Jews)' The utility of an ethnic name method has been demonstrated in a stildy of London Jews in 1984 (Waterman ,9\KOSMIN.B.A.andc.LEVY(1983)JewishidenlityinanAnglo-Jewish and Kosmin, 19g6). CommuniD'. (London: Board ol Deputies of British Jews)'

54 55 m. Me0odologicel problems (80) ABMII JIiSON, M. unreliability of -(1985) "The DJN techniques,', Contemporary Jewry,7, pp. 93-98. ql) 9948N S.M. (1981) LIJS Demographicat/Attitudinal Sunqt Krl, (New york). (82) COHN W. (1981) 'What's in a name", tubtic Opinion euarterty,5.7,pp.660_665. (83) HIMM_ELFARB, H.S. (1985) "Fr4!her comments on the use of DlfV', Contemporary Jewry, 7, pp. 99 -102. (84) HIMMELFAIB, H.S., R. M., LOAR and S. H. MOTT (1981) ..Sampling b^y ethnic surnames: the case of American Jews;', ?u6tic Opi;io;' Quarterly, 47 , pp. 247 -260. ..The (85) KOSMIN B.A. and S. WATERMAN (1986) use and misuse of ethnic names in Jewish social research". papers in Jewish Demographv 19g5. (Jerusalem: Institute of Contemporary Jewry). (85) KRAUSZ, q. (128-l) "Concepts and theoretical models for Anglo-Jewish s_ociolog,y". -In:-[._L. Lipqqn and V. D. Lipman (editor)lJewish Life in Britain 1962-1977, pp. l7 -30. (87) LAZERWITZb B. (1985) "Some comments on the use of Distinctive Jewish Names in surveys", Contemporary Jewry,7, pp. g3-97. (88) MASSARIX, l'. (1966) 'New approaches to the study of the American Jew", The Jewi s h Jo urna I of So c i o lo gt, 8, pp. I 75 - 1 9 1. (89) PHILLIPS, B. (1985) "DJN and list samples in the Southwest: Addendum to lazerwitz", Co ntemp o ra ry Jew ry, 7, pp. I 03 - 1 09. (90) RITTERBAND, P. and S. M. COHEN (1984) "The social characteristics of the New York area Jewish community, 19g1", American Jewish Yearbook, 1984 pp. 128-161. ..Estimating (91) VARADY, D.P.and S. J. MANTEL (1981) the size of Jewish communities using random telephone svveys", Journal of Jewish Communal Semice, 57, pp. 225 -234. (92) YAMDY, D.P. (1982) "Neighbourhood stabilization in Jewish communities: a comparative analysis',. Contemporary Jewry, 6 (l), pp. 18-35. ..Mapping (93) WATERMAN S. and B. A. KOSMIN (1986) an unenumerated ethnic population - Jews in London", Ethnic and Racial Studies,10, (forthcoming.l. ry. Other (94) DAVIDS, L. (1985) "Ca-nadian Jewry: some recent census findings',. American Jewish Yearbook 19!5, pp. 191-201. (95) ELAZA& D. J. with P. Y. MEDDINd-(1985) Jewish Communities in Frontier Societies, (New York and London: Holmes and Meier). (96) GOLDSCHEIDER, C. (1986) Jewish Continuity and Change: Emerging patterns in.America. (Bloomington: Indiana University press;l C-hapter 3: "Residential concentration and Jewish cohesion". (97) MILLMAN, I. (1983) "Data on Diaspora Jewish populations lrom official censuses". In: U.O. Schmelz, p. Glikson and S. J. Gould (Editors ),,Srry1jeg i n Jew i s h D e1t o gra p hy Su m ey r I g 7 2 - I g g0, (New York:KTAV). pp.33-120. - fo

55