INTRODUCTION

Local Jewish Population Studies: Still Necessary After All These Years Ira She-skln University of Miami (ContemporaryJewryv.15 1994) UneqmvocaUy, the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS 1990) changed the agenda of the American Jewish community. All major American Jewish magazines, as well as Jewish publications around the world, have devoted articles or whole issues to the concerns about Jewish continuity implied by the study. It has become the topic of sermons in countless synagogues. It has become the subject of discussion even among American Jews who view themselves as somewhat marginal to the c o m m ~ t y . Particular attention has been paid to the findings on the intermarriage rate. While one could argue from anecdotal evidence that we should have known about such matters as the high intermarriage rate even before the 1990 NJPS, it took such a scientific demographic study, with irrefutable results published by the coordinating bodies for all Jewish Federations in North America (the Council of Jewish Federations), to catch the attention of all and to obtain a commitment to address the various issues. Jewish communities now seek those types of progmm~ that might be attractive to young Jews so that they will "opt in" rather than "opt out" and those that might attract young intermarried couples to identify with the Jewish community and to raise Jewish children. Many of the issues raised by the NJPS are now being researched by members of the National Technical Advisory Committee of the Council of Jewish Federations end others. The national results, to some extent, may obviate the need for certain information at the local level. For example, we now have national information about Jewish fertility levels. Local Jewish federations, however, are not in a position (nor is it their mission) to try to increase the number of children Jewish couples are having. Information on attitudes on some matters of importance to Jews is also available from the national study and indicates that some have clearly changed over the past decades. It is hard to imagine, however, that the crosstabulations of these attitudes with age or with measures of religiosity will vary greatly from one community to the next, even if the attitudes themselves do. Nevertheless, despite the existence of this invaluable national data set, it is quite clear that local Jewish community studies have, can,

CONTEMPORARY IEWRY

should, and will continue to be executed. New York, Chicago, South Broward, and Columbus all timed their local studies to be in the interviewing stage within a short time of the NJPS. Since 1990, studies have been completed, or are underway, in Alaska, Amarillo, Detroit, Harrisburg, Las Vegas, Memphis, Middlesex County-NJ, Montreal, Orlando, Miami, Philadelphia, Sacramento, St. Louis, St. Paul, St. Petersburg/Clearwater, San Antonio, Sarasota-Manatee, Seattle, Southern NJ, Toronto, and West Palm Beach. Just as a national study addresses issues of national concern that must be dealt with nationally, local studies provide significant information about a local comm~ty that a national study never could. This special issue presents results of the local studies for four commttmlies. Three, New York (1991), Chicago (1991), and Columbus (i991), are in the Northeast; one, Orlando (1992), is in the South. New York and Chicago are large Jewish communities; Columbus and Orlando are small ones. Each article in this issue clearly demonstrates the importance of local studies in gathering information that is useful to local communities. Horowitz, in examining the important New York study, makes the case, in her articulation of the "New York effect," that there are regional differences in the level of Jewishness. On the whole, there is less erosion of Jewishness in New York than has occurred nationally. Where Jews form a relatively high percentage of the overall population, as in New York, the generational erosion model applied to many local communitiesmay not be as accurate as elsewhere. In contrast, Sheskin, in examiningthe $outhern Jewish community of Orlando, shows the significant decline in Jewishness in that community, with the results in Orlando mirroring the national survey relatively well. The results clearly suggest that "Jewish continuity" had to move to the top of the community's agenda, rather than their proceeding with earlier plans for a Jewish nursing home which had provided part of the initial impetus for the study. Friedman makes the important point that data from the demographic study in Chicago were used as input to a Priorities Study, a Jewish Identity and Continuity Study, sub-regional planning studies, and the betterment of synagogue and Federation relations. In a somewhat similar vein, Mott and Mott note that local planning needs to take account of local conditions. In particular, community planning in Columbus has to address the fact of increasing geographic dispersal and variation. The ability of the local community to render religious, social and communal services is greatly affected by such

INTRODUCTION

3

dispersal and variation. The logistic complications alone are considerable. Local population studies cart enlighten discussions of such issues a s the feasibility of serving outlying populations. Methodological issues are addressed as well. Sheskin addresses two issues with respect to sampling: improving both Random Digit Dialing (RDD) surveys and the use of Distinctive lewish Names (D/Ns). Mott examines differences between the Columbus RDD samples and the sample drawn from the federation's mailing list. Friedman addresses the problems created by ever decreasing response rates and raises the issue of the definition of "who-is-a-Jew" in the content of local demographic studies. Clearly, methodological issues still present themselves. Different communities may well find it best to opt for somewhat different methodologies. Finally, all of these studies indicate that both the art and the science of $ewish demographic studies have advanced significantly in the past decades. As a group, researchers have improved methodology, recognized limitations of the methodology, and, in particular, learned the types of questions that do and do not "work" in a telephone survey. These papers also serve to indicate the importance of local studies to local communities and the value of communities repeating their studies at intervals that facilitate identifying and understanding trends in the American Jewish Community.