Brandeis University
Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement:
The Impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel
Leonard Saxe
Shira Fishman
Michelle Shain
Graham Wright
Shahar Hecht
November 2013
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
© 2013 Brandeis University
Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies
Brandeis University
Mailstop 014
Waltham, MA 02454-9110
781.736.2060
www.brandeis.edu/cmjs
The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, founded in 1980, is
dedicated to providing independent, high quality research on issues related to
contemporary Jewish life.
The Cohen Center is also the home of the Steinhardt Social Research Institute (SSRI).
Established in 2005, SSRI uses innovative research methods to collect and analyze
socio-demographic data on the Jewish community.
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support of Taglit-Birthright Israel, an organization that
considers independent research a critical element of its program development. We are
especially appreciative for the help of Taglit’s educational and research consultants,
Prof. Barry Chazan and Prof. Gil Troy. We also thank Taglit’s executive leadership:
Gidi Mark (CEO), Prof. Ada Spitzer (Vice President), and Dr. Zohar Raviv (Director of
Education). Appreciation is also expressed to the supporters of the Cohen Center for
Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University.
This project could not have been carried out without the assistance of our research team
at Brandeis University. We are appreciative and grateful for their efforts. Working
diligently to ensure the highest care going into our data collection was Natanya Cohen.
Calling supervisors Rachel Bernstein and Yves Bruno supervised many night and
weekend shifts and responded to various questions from respondents. Ben Lefebvre
offered technical support for the survey software and the survey management. Dina
Bleckman and Ellie Aitan were responsible for data coding. Theadora Fisher assisted
with data cleaning and initial analysis. We acknowledge Eitan Melchior, z"l, for his help
in the initial stages of the study. We miss him greatly.
We also thank our colleagues Prof. Charles Kadushin and Prof. Ted Sasson, who
provided critical review and insights. Deborah Grant and Joshua Davidson turned our
words and charts into a physical report. And none of this work would be possible
without the support of our colleagues, Masha Lokshin and Gloria Tessler, who manage
day-to-day operations.
Our team of telephone interviewers was critical to project implementation. We
acknowledge their work with appreciation. Callers included: Nihan Celiktas, Carmelle
Eloi, Nia Fogelman, Lauren Fox, Rachel Gordon, Rebecca Grossman, Yakov Israel,
Vicky Negus, Dara Rosenkrantz, Danielle Spencer, Daniel Shpolyansky, Shira Straus,
Alie Tawah, Annie Torres, and Kristina Yepez.
Our gratitude to reviewers of this report notwithstanding, the authors take full
responsibility for the design, conduct, and results of the study.
ii
i
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables..................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................1
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................3
Study Population ......................................................................................................................9
Taglit’s Impact on Attitudes ..................................................................................................13
Jewish Engagement on the College Campus ........................................................................15
Post-College Jewish Engagement..........................................................................................19
Discussion ...............................................................................................................................25
Notes........................................................................................................................................27
References ...............................................................................................................................29
Appendix A: Methodology ....................................................................................................31
Appendix B: Attitudinal Impact of Taglit for Undergraduates and
Non-Undergraduates .......................................................................................................37
Appendix C: Tables ................................................................................................................47
ii
iii
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Taglit applicants who were undergraduates at the time of application by
cohort ..................................................................................................................................9
Figure 2: Age at time of survey by undergraduate status ....................................................10
Figure 3: Most intense form of ritual practice during high school by undergraduate
status..................................................................................................................................10
Figure 4: Most intense form of formal Jewish education by undergraduate status ............11
Figure 5: Jewish denomination raised by undergraduate status ..........................................12
Figure 6: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation
(undergraduate and post-college) ....................................................................................13
Figure 7: Importance of being Jewish and forming a Jewish family by Taglit
participation ......................................................................................................................14
Figure 8: Being invited to activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by
Taglit participation (undergraduates) ..............................................................................15
Figure 9: Participating in activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by
Taglit participation (undergraduates) ..............................................................................16
Figure 10: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (undergraduates) .........17
Figure 11: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (post-college) ..............20
Figure 12: Donating to Jewish causes and volunteering under Jewish sponsorship by
Taglit participation (post-college) ...................................................................................20
Figure 13: Engagement in Jewish religious life by Taglit participation (post-college) .....21
Figure 14: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by age group (Taglit participants).....................22
Figure 15: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)................22
Figure 16: Attending a NEXT Shabbat meal by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)..........23
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Executive Summary
The engagement of Jewish young adults
with their heritage and communal
institutions has been an ongoing concern of
the Jewish community. In North America, a
host of initiatives have been developed to
engage this population, the largest of which
is Taglit-Birthright Israel. Launched in 1999,
Taglit’s reach is striking. By 2013 more than
350,000 Jewish young adults from around
the world had participated in a 10-day
educational trip to Israel under the
program’s auspices.
A substantial body of prior evaluative
research documents the effects of the
program, in particular on participants’
attitudes toward Israel and Jewish life. When
compared to similar others who did not
participate, Taglit alumni are more likely to
feel a stronger connection to Israel and to
the worldwide Jewish community. They are
also more likely to consider it very
important for them to marry someone Jewish
and raise Jewish children. In the short-term,
the trip leads to modest behavioral changes,
particularly among college-aged
participants, who are more likely to engage
in Hillel activities and take classes focusing
on Israel or on Jewish subjects. In the longterm, there is evidence that the program has
significant behavioral impact. Recent data
from studies of Taglit alumni who are now
(on average) over 30 years old, show that
participants, as compared to nonparticipants,
are more likely to be married to another Jew,
belong to synagogues, celebrate Shabbat,
and make charitable donations to Jewish or
Israeli causes.
The present study examines the short- and
moderate-term impact of Taglit. This
analysis focuses on the emerging young
adult experience—the period of time
immediately after the trips and the first few
years that follow. The study looks at the
effects of Taglit on participants, and in
particular, on their attitudes toward Jewish
life and participation in Jewish activities.
The present findings are based on data
collected in an online survey (spring 2011)
from a random stratified sample of
American Taglit applicants in the 2007-2010
cohorts (N=7,662).
Findings:
Six months to four years after the
program, Taglit participants felt more
connected to Israel and the Jewish
community than did nonparticipants.
Among all respondents, those with
stronger Jewish educational backgrounds
reported deeper feelings of connection to
Israel and Jewish life, while those who
were older reported weaker feelings of
connection. Controlling for the impact of
Jewish background and age, however,
participation in Taglit still had a
measurable impact on attitudes.
Most undergraduate respondents were
invited by at least one campus-based
Jewish organization to participate in its
activities; participants were more likely
than nonparticipants to have been invited
and to have participated in at least one
1
2
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
activity. Most post-college respondents
participated in at least one program
sponsored by a Jewish organization in
the year prior to the survey. Parties and
social gatherings were the most popular
activities. Taglit participants were
generally more likely to participate than
nonparticipants.
Among post-college respondents who
donated to any cause in the past year,
Taglit participants were more likely to
have donated at least some of their
money to a Jewish cause. Similarly,
among those who reported volunteering
in the past 12 months, Taglit participants
were more likely than nonparticipants to
have volunteered under Jewish auspices.
Despite low levels of engagement
overall, post-college Taglit participants,
as compared to nonparticipants, were
more likely to have had a special
Shabbat meal on the Friday night prior to
the survey, to be synagogue members,
and to have attended Jewish religious
services in the past month.
Forty-three percent of Taglit participants
had heard of NEXT Shabbat before
being asked about it in the survey.
Overall, 13 percent of Taglit participants
had attended a NEXT Shabbat meal,
either as a guest or a host, including six
percent having attended a NEXT
Shabbat meal more than once. About
half of all those who attended a NEXT
Shabbat meal had hosted a meal at least
once; the rest had been guests.
Consistent with previous research, the
present findings indicate that Taglit has a
robust impact on attitudes toward Israel and
the Jewish community, and a broad, but
modest, impact on engagement with Jewish
life. The level of engagement with Jewish
life among young adults, including
engagement with Taglit follow-up programs,
however, is relatively low. Given
participants’ expressed strong connection to
their Jewish identity, one might expect that
Jewish young adults, and Taglit alumni in
particular, would be more involved in
Jewish activities. But even when attitudes
and behaviors are aligned, there are
additional barriers to participation.
Taglit alumni have a heightened sense of
their Jewish identity and it seems likely, as
they come into full adult roles, that they will
be more highly involved than their peers
who did not have the experience. At the
same time, the likelihood that they will
participate will inevitably be mediated by
the ability of Jewish communal institutions
to serve their needs. The gap that currently
exists between Taglit alumni’s positive
attitudes and their actual behavior may only
be breached by institutions that are able to
adapt to the concerns and structural
constraints associated with emerging
adulthood. Exactly how this can be done is
beyond the scope of the present study. It is
clear, however, that those organizations that
are effective will address a desire for
community through the loose connective
structures most appropriate for this
population’s stage of life.
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Introduction
The engagement of Jewish young adults
with their heritage and Jewish institutions
has, over the last two decades, been a central
issue for the Jewish community (see, e.g.,
Cohen & Kelman, 2008; Kotler-Berkowitz,
et al., 2004). Concerned with assimilation
pressures and intermarriage, the Jewish
community has developed a number of
initiatives designed to bolster engagement
with Jewish life among Jewish young adults
and to foster connections with Israel. TaglitBirthright Israel is the largest of these
programs (Saxe & Chazan, 2008) and, since
its inception in 1999, has allowed more than
350,000 Jewish young adults from around
the world to visit Israel on 10-day
educational trips. More than two-thirds of
Taglit’s participants are from the largest
Jewish diaspora community, the United
States (Taglit-Birthright Israel, 2013).
Taglit, and in particular its North American
groups, has been the focus of an extensive
program of independent evaluative
research.1 Several dozen studies have now
been conducted with multiple cohorts of
Taglit applicants and participants to assess
the program’s impact. Typically, these
studies employ quasi-experimental designs
that compare participants and equivalent
nonparticipant applicants both pre- and posttrip (see, e.g., Saxe, et al., 2004; Saxe,
Sasson, & Hecht, 2006). A variety of
measures have been used to assess the
program’s impact three months to nearly 12
years after participation in Taglit. Impact has
been assessed by focusing on participants’
attitudes and feelings about their Jewish
identity, Israel, and the Jewish community.
In addition, researchers have examined
behaviors related to Jewish life such as
participation in Jewish organizations on and
off campus, observance of Shabbat and
holidays, and giving to Jewish causes. Taglit
specifically targets young people in the stage
of life termed emerging adulthood (see
Arnett, 2004), a period characterized by
questioning, seeking, and developing one’s
identity.
Findings from evaluation research studies
regarding Taglit’s impact on attitudes have
been highly consistent across and within
cohorts over time. For example, multiple
studies have documented that when
participants are compared to similar others
who did not participate on the trip,
participants are more likely to feel a stronger
connection to Israel and to the worldwide
Jewish community (Saxe, Kadushin, Kelner,
Rosen, & Yereslove, 2002; Saxe, et al.,
2008; Saxe, Sasson, Phillips, Hecht, &
Wright, 2007). Other studies have provided
evidence that these differences persist over
time, from one to three years after the trip
(Saxe, et al., 2004; Saxe, et al., 2006) and
even five to 11 years after the trip (Saxe, et
al., 2009; Saxe, Sasson, et al., 2011; Saxe, et
al., 2012). Evaluation studies also indicate
that participants are more likely to report a
stronger commitment to Jewish continuity.
In both the short and the long term,
participants are more likely to state that it is
very important to them to marry someone
Jewish and to raise their children Jewish
(Saxe, et al., 2004; Saxe, et al., 2002; Saxe,
et al., 2008; Saxe, et al., 2009; Saxe, et al.,
2006; Saxe, Sasson, et al., 2011; Saxe, et al.,
2012).
3
4
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Although evidence of changes in attitudes
regarding connection to Israel and toward
Jewish life suggests fairly dramatic program
impact, the evidence of change in behavior,
as a result of participation in Taglit, has been
more modest. The findings, however,
interact with age and the developmental
stage of the participant. Thus, among
participants who are undergraduate college
students, there is evidence that Taglit
increases engagement with Hillel (Saxe, et
al., 2008) and leads to increases in the
likelihood of taking Israel or Jewish Studies
courses (Saxe, et al., 2002). At the same
time, for post-college students, there is not
much evidence of behavioral change (Saxe,
et al., 2008; Saxe, et al., 2007). In a 2009
study, many post-college Taglit alumni
describe Jewish life in their communities as
inaccessible and unappealing (Chertok,
Sasson, & Saxe, 2009). But it is not clear to
what extent the findings are a function of the
lack of opportunities for this age group.
Recently, however, as large numbers of
participants from the early years of the
program assume full adult roles, it has been
possible to explore Taglit’s impact on a
wider variety of potential behavioral
measures: marriage, childrearing, and adult
engagement with the Jewish community.
Since 2009, four waves of a longitudinal
study, with a panel of more than 3,000
individuals who applied to Taglit between
2001 and 2006, have been conducted in
order to track Jewish engagement as a
function of Taglit. The findings indicate
substantial program impact. Taglit
participants, as compared to nonparticipants,
are more likely to be married to another Jew,
be synagogue members, celebrate Shabbat,
and make charitable donations to Jewish or
Israeli organizations or causes (Saxe, 2013;
Saxe, et al., 2009; Saxe, Sasson, et al., 2011;
Saxe, et al., 2012). Thus, the evidence
indicates that over time Taglit has been
successful in strengthening Jewish identity,
as well as the likelihood of Jewish family
formation and participation in Jewish life.
The findings indicate that the program is
effective for participants with a variety of
Jewish backgrounds (i.e., participants with
no formal Jewish education, those with
several years of Jewish supplementary
schooling, and even those with day school
experience).
Two issues underlie the present research.
The first question looks at whether the
effects of Taglit observed in previous studies
are evident in recent cohorts. Taglit has
expanded over time and, since 2008, the
number of participants has doubled. In
addition, the characteristics of the applicant
pool have changed compared to its first eight
years. Whereas the majority of Taglit
participants in the 2001-2004 cohorts were
ages 21 or younger (Saxe, et al., 2009), by
summer 2008, the majority of participants
were ages 22 or older (Saxe, et al., 2008).
There has also been an increase in the
proportion of participants with little or no
Jewish background. In the 2001-2004
cohorts, 37 percent of participants kept
kosher at home during high school (Saxe, et
al., 2009), whereas only 13 percent of the
summer 2008 cohort did so (Saxe, et al.,
2008). Thus, the report examines the
patterns of attitude change and the levels of
Jewish engagement among recent Taglit
cohorts.
The second question addresses Jewish
engagement among Taglit applicants in their
emerging adulthood years—a period of time
when most of these young adults are not in a
secure job or professional role, are highly
mobile, and are in the process of developing
the social networks that will stabilize only
later in life (Arnett, 2004). Specifically, the
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
analysis focuses on Taglit’s role in these
young adults’ Jewish lives and on its ability
to impact Jewish engagement immediately
after the trip and the first few years that
follow. Although there is unequivocal
evidence of Taglit’s impact on the attitudes
of participants of diverse Jewish
backgrounds, the trajectory of Jewish
involvement is somewhat puzzling. Upon
immediate return, strong attitudinal changes
are not matched by participants’ levels of
engagement with the community. Yet,
substantial change over the long term (up to
a decade or more after participation in
Taglit) has been documented, in particular,
in terms of marital decision-making.
The findings described in the present study
derive from data collected in a survey of the
cohorts that applied to the program between
2007 and 2010. The analyses presented
serve to help us better understand what
Jewish involvement looks like at this
particular developmental stage and the ways
in which Jewish engagement evolves over
time. Thus, in addition to examining overall
levels of Jewish engagement, the report
examines how Jewish involvement
manifests itself in early young adulthood,
both among those in college and those postcollege. Finally, this study reviews the
impact of recent efforts to engage Taglit
alumni.
5
6
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Method
The present analyses focus on data collected
in an online survey of eligible North
American applicants to the winter 2006-07
through summer 2010 Taglit trips. A
stratified random sample of 67,400 eligible
applicants was invited to participate in an
online survey that was in the field during
spring 2011. Survey respondents completed
the survey six months to four years after
they applied for the trips. A random group
(N=3,000) was selected for intensive phone
follow-up in order to account for any bias
due to non-response. The relatively low
response rate in the overall sample did not
appear to contribute to significant nonresponse bias. This finding is based on an
analysis comparing the overall sample to the
special follow-up sample which achieved a
much higher response rate.2 The response
rate for the intensive follow-up sample was
48 percent (53 percent for participants, 40
percent for nonparticipants), while the
overall response rate was 11 percent (12
percent for participants, 10 percent for nonparticipants. For the purposes of this report,
analysis was limited to respondents who
resided in the United States at the time of the
survey. Full details of sample selection and
survey administration are presented in
Appendix A.
The analytic paradigm of this study
compares Taglit participants to similar
others who applied to the program but did
not go. Comparisons are valid if there are no
known pre-existing differences between
participants and nonparticipants or, in the
event that there are differences that might
affect outcomes, the differences can be
accounted for statistically. Historically,
assignment to the program was practically
random (Saxe, et al., 2008), but this changed
in recent years. Beginning in winter 200809, Taglit implemented a pre-registration
system in order to give preference to
applicants who had applied to the trip
before. Preference is also given to older
applicants who will age out of the program.
The central findings presented in this report,
therefore, use logistic regression (either
binary, ordinal, or multinomial, depending
on the nature of the dependent variable) to
control for factors that are related to
participation in Taglit: age, Jewish
background,3 and, for non-undergraduates,
engagement with Jewish organizations in
college (e.g., Hillel). By controlling for
these factors, the impact of Taglit
participation can be isolated from factors
associated with being selected to participate.
The figures presented are based on predicted
probabilities derived from the regression
models, holding the control variables at their
mean values.
7
8
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Study Population
Undergraduates versus Others
Forty-seven percent of Taglit participants in
the current sample went on the program
while they were undergraduates. The
proportion of Taglit participants who were
undergraduates declined in both winter and
summer trips over the four years of the study
period (Figure 1). This was most dramatic
for the summer trips, where the proportion
of undergraduates declined by one-third
from summer 2007 to summer 2010, from
47 percent to only 31 percent.
The pattern of decreasing participation by
undergraduates means that fewer Taglit
participants return to college campuses after
their trips. Because post-college alumni face
a very different set of opportunities for
Jewish engagement than undergraduate
alumni, this shift in the makeup of
participants is critical to understanding the
impact of Taglit on post-trip Jewish
engagement. At the time of the survey, onequarter (24 percent) of respondents were
undergraduates, while three-quarters (76
percent) were not.4
Demographic and Jewish Background
Characteristics
Age and gender - Most undergraduate
respondents were between 20 and 22 years
old at the time of the survey, whereas most
post-college respondents were in their midtwenties (Figure 2). Women were slightly
overrepresented in the population: 54
percent of undergraduates and 57 percent of
post-college respondents were female.
Figure 1: Taglit applicants who were undergraduates at the time of application by cohort*
100%
80%
60%
40%
60%
57%
47%
20%
40%
48%
55%
44%
31%
0%
Winter
2006-07
* Estimated proportions.
Summer
2007
Winter
2007-08
Summer
2008
Winter
2008-09
Summer
2009
Winter
2009-10
Summer
2010
9
10
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Family Jewish ritual practice during high
school - Undergraduate and post-college
respondents did not differ dramatically on
measures of Jewish background. Close to
half of the respondents reported that during
their high school years their families
celebrated both Hanukkah and Passover.
About one in five reported that their families
also regularly lit Shabbat candles.
Undergraduates were more likely to come
from families that kept kosher at home (23
percent vs. 16 percent for nonundergraduates) (Figure 3).
Figure 2: Age at time of survey by undergraduate status*
100%
80%
Non-undergraduates
Undergraduates
60%
40%
40%
24%
19%
20%
0%
16%
12%
4%
0%
19
1%
20
* Estimated proportions.
6%
2%
21
22
23
14%
2%
24
12%
2%
25
11%
1%
26
11%
1%
27
10%
1%
28
7%
1%
29
2%
0%
0%0%
30
31
Figure 3: Most intense form of ritual practice during high school by undergraduate status*
100%
6%
12%
3%
8%
80%
47%
60%
47%
None
Hannukkah
Seder
40%
19%
19%
20%
16%
23%
0%
Non-undergraduates
* Estimated proportions.
Undergraduates
Shabbat
Kosher
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Formal Jewish education growing up Respondents had varying levels of formal
Jewish education (Figure 4). About one-fifth
had no formal Jewish education, while
another fifth attended full-time Jewish day
schools. The rest of the respondents had
some supplemental Jewish education, such
as Hebrew school or Sunday school. While
undergraduates and non-graduates were
similar in their Jewish education levels,
undergraduates were more likely to have
attended Jewish day school.
Reconstructionist, and one-quarter were
raised Conservative (25 percent of both
undergraduates and post-college
respondents). Another quarter of
respondents were raised secular/culturally
Jewish or “Just Jewish” (27 percent of
undergraduates and 24 percent of postcollege respondents). A small number of
respondents were raised Orthodox (eight
percent of undergraduates and four percent
of post-college respondents), and the rest
were raised no religion or something else
(Figure 5).
Parents’ religion - Almost three-quarters of
respondents had two Jewish parents (73
percent of undergraduates and 71 percent of
post-college respondents).
Jewish background index - The analyses
presented in this report control for a single
index of “childhood Jewish background,”
which combines the different measures of
Jewish background reported above: formal
Jewish education, high school ritual practice,
parental inmarriage, and being raised
Orthodox.5
Jewish denomination - A plurality of
respondents (36 percent of both
undergraduates and post-college
respondents) were raised Reform or
Figure 4: Most intense form of formal Jewish education by undergraduate status*
100%
22%
17%
80%
No formal Jewish education
60%
63%
63%
40%
No day school, but some
supplementary Jewish education
Some day school
20%
15%
20%
0%
Non-undergraduates
* Estimated proportions.
Undergraduates
11
12
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 5: Jewish denomination raised by undergraduate status*
100%
3%
5%
80%
27%
2%
5%
24%
Other
No religion
60%
36%
36%
Secular/culturally Jewish, Just
Jewish
Reform, Reconstructionist
40%
Conservative
20%
25%
25%
4%
0%
Non-undergraduates
* Estimated proportions.
8%
Undergraduates
Orthodox
13
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Taglit’s Impact on Attitudes
Consistent with previous research,
participation in Taglit has an impact on
attitudes associated with Israel and the
Jewish community. Indeed, participants
from the 2007-2010 Taglit cohorts again
demonstrate stronger feelings of connection
to Israel and the Jewish community than
nonparticipants (Figure 6). Among
participants and nonparticipants, Jewish
background was naturally associated with
stronger feelings of connection, and age was
associated with weaker feelings of
connection. However, controlling for the
impact of Jewish background and age, Taglit
still had a measurable impact on
participants. Taglit’s greatest impact is
observed on connection to Israel, where
participants were 2.5 times as likely to feel
“very much” connected to Israel. Higher
levels of connection to the worldwide
Jewish community, to the local Jewish
community, and to Jewish peers were
observed among participants, but the effect
size was smaller. Taglit’s impact on attitudes
presented here does not distinguish between
college and post-college respondents
because Taglit’s impact is very similar for
both groups.6
Figure 6: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (undergraduate and post-college)*
100%
4%
13%
10%
7%
28%
23%
80%
6%
5%
23%
22%
25%
28%
32%
42%
30%
60%
32%
37%
39%
36%
40%
30%
31%
20%
27%
35%
31%
26%
23%
14%
0%
39%
37%
13%
33%
17%
Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants
Connection to Israel
Part of a worldwide Jewish
community
Very much
Somewhat
Part of local Jewish community
A little
Connected to Jewish peers
Not at all
* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.
14
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 7: Importance of being Jewish and forming a Jewish family by Taglit participation*
100%
17%
14%
11%
25%
19%
16%
80%
19%
3%
5%
5%
8%
22%
29%
60%
23%
26%
33%
29%
40%
28%
62%
54%
49%
20%
43%
35%
25%
0%
Nonparticipants
Participants
Marry someone Jewish**
Very important
Nonparticipants
Participants
Nonparticipants
Raise children Jewish***
Somewhat important
A little important
Participants
Being Jewish
Not important
* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.
** Excludes the seven percent respondents who are currently married.
*** Excludes the eight percent of respondents who have children.
Taglit participants were more likely to rate
“being Jewish” as “very much” important to
their lives, relative to nonparticipants,
suggesting the salience of Judaism to their
identity. They also demonstrated a stronger
desire to form a Jewish family (Figure 7).
Participants were 40 percent more likely to
say that marrying someone Jewish was very
important to them and 27 percent more
likely to say that raising their children
Jewish was very important to them. These
attitudes may eventually translate into
behavior. Long-term follow-up research has
documented that between six and 11 years
after the trip Taglit participants are
significantly more likely to be married to a
Jew as compared to nonparticipants (Saxe, et
al., 2009; Saxe, Phillips, et al., 2011; Saxe,
Sasson, et al., 2011; Saxe, et al., 2012).
15
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Jewish Engagement on the College Campus
Twenty-four percent of respondents were
undergraduates at the time of the survey.
The majority (85 percent) went on the trip
during their college years. Just as Jewish
background and being younger were
associated with more positive Jewish
attitudes, these two factors were also
associated with increased Jewish
engagement for undergraduates. Controlling
for the impact of Jewish background and
age, Taglit had a small but consistent impact
on participants’ engagement with campusbased Jewish groups such as Hillel, as well
as on participation in a wide variety of
Jewish activities.
Campus-Based Jewish Groups
Undergraduate respondents were asked
whether they had been invited to activities
sponsored by Hillel, Chabad-Lubavitch, a
Jewish fraternity or sorority (e.g., AEPi), or
another campus-based Jewish group in the
past 12 months. They were then asked
whether they actually engaged in any such
activities. Overall, most respondents (85
percent) were invited by at least one
campus-based organization to participate in
its activities. However, Taglit participants
were significantly more likely to be invited
by these groups (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Being invited to activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by Taglit
participation (undergraduates)*
100%
80%
Once or twice
13%
3 or more times
11%
40%
14%
9%
13%
52%
43%
34%
25%
32%
5%
4%
11%
Hillel
Chabad
Participants
Nonparticipants
Participants
Nonparticipants
Participants
Nonparticipants
0%
Jewish fraternity or
sorority
Nonparticipants
20%
73%
18%
Participants
60%
11%
Other campus-based
Jewish group
* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.
16
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
The majority of respondents (67 percent)
also participated in at least one activity
sponsored by a campus-based Jewish group
in the past 12 months. Taglit participants
were more likely than nonparticipants to
participate in activities sponsored by these
organizations (Figure 9). Those who were
invited by a campus Jewish group to
participate in activities were also much more
likely to participate in those activities than
those who were not invited. Additional
analysis not presented here suggests that
Taglit participants’ greater likelihood of
participating in Jewish activities on campus
is largely, perhaps even exclusively, due to
their greater likelihood of receiving an
invitation. Among those who were not
invited, Taglit participants were no more
likely to participate than nonparticipants.
Participation in Activities sponsored by
Jewish Organizations
To gauge the types of activities offered by
Jewish organizations on campus that are
most popular and well attended, survey
respondents were asked whether they had
engaged in particular activities with Jewish
content or Jewish sponsorship including: (1)
a party, happy hour, or social gathering; (2)
a lecture, speaker, or class; (3) a cultural
event, such as a concert of film screening;
Figure 9: Participating in activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by Taglit
participation (undergraduates)*
100%
80%
60%
21%
Once or twice
40%
3 or more times
24%
14%
20%
38%
18%
0%
13%
12%
17%
13%
Nonparticipants
Participants
Hillel
15%
Nonparticipants
Participants
Chabad
13%
Nonparticipants
17%
Participants
Jewish fraternity or sorority
5%
3%
4%
8%
Nonparticipants
Participants
Other campus-based Jewish
group
* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.
17
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 10: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (undergraduates)*
100%
80%
60%
19%
40%
20%
21%
Once
21%
More than once
17%
14%
19%
Lecture, speaker, or
class
Cultural event
3%
7%
12%
Participants
10%
Participants
Nonparticipants
Participants
Nonparticipants
Participants
Nonparticipants
Party, happy hour, or
social gathering
4%
20%
14%
0%
10%
Nonparticipants
27%
22%
Participants
34%
29%
Nonparticipants
42%
20%
Social justice / activism Another type of activity
event or activity
* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish
engagement in college.
(4) a social justice/activism event or activity;
or (5) another type of event or activity. The
majority of undergraduate respondents (69
percent) had participated in at least one
activity in the past twelve months. The most
popular type of activities were parties and
social gatherings sponsored by Jewish
organizations, attracting about half of
undergraduate respondents at least once in
the 12 months prior to the survey. In
general, Taglit participants were likely to
attend these activities with greater frequency
compared to nonparticipants (Figure 10).
18
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Post-College Jewish Engagement
This section explores the Jewish engagement
of the 76 percent of respondents who were
not undergraduates at the time they were
surveyed.7 Removed from the campus
community, Jewish young adults face a
different landscape of Jewish opportunities.
Many Jewish organizations and
congregations cater their services and
programming to families with young
children (Sheskin & Kotler-Berkowitz,
2007). While there has been recent
investment in programming for single
Jewish young adults, many barriers to
engagement remain, including difficulties in
finding opportunities and issues of cultural
fit (Chertok, et al., 2009; Cohen & Kelman,
2007).
Below, Taglit’s impact on Jewish
involvement is examined, focusing on
participation in activities sponsored by
Jewish organizations, Jewish congregational
membership, attendance at religious
services, Shabbat and holiday observances,
giving to Jewish causes, and volunteering
under Jewish sponsorship. Not surprisingly,
Jewish background and engagement with
campus Jewish life during college were
positive predictors of Jewish engagement for
post-college respondents, while age had an
inconsistent effect. Controlling for the
impact of Jewish background, college
Jewish engagement, and age, Taglit was a
predictor of increased Jewish engagement
across a number of measures. The end of
this section examines the role of the largest
initiative targeting post-college Taglit
alumni—NEXT Shabbat—in facilitating
Jewish engagement.
Participation in Jewish Activities
Whereas almost 70 percent of
undergraduates participated in at least one
activity sponsored by a Jewish organization
in the year prior to the survey, only half of
post-college respondents did so. As with
undergraduates, among post-college
respondents, the most popular of these
activities were parties and social events
(around 40 percent of respondents reported
having participated in such activities in the
past 12 months). Taglit participants were
generally more likely to participate in
Jewish-sponsored activities than
nonparticipants (Figure 11). While the
differences are not large, they are
statistically significant.
Giving and Volunteering
Respondents were asked whether, in the year
prior to the survey, they had made any
charitable contributions or engaged in any
volunteer activities. Among those who
donated to any cause in the past year, Taglit
participants were more likely to have
donated at least some of their money to a
Jewish cause (Figure 12). Similarly, among
those who reported volunteering in the past
12 months, Taglit participants were more
likely than nonparticipants to have
volunteered under Jewish auspices (Figure
12).8
Jewish Religious Engagement
Post-college Taglit participants were
somewhat more likely to engage in Jewish
19
20
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 11: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (post-college)*
100%
80%
60%
40%
18%
Party, happy hour or
social gathering
Lecture, speaker or
class
Cultural event
8%
8%
4%
5%
4%
6%
Participants
9%
4%
Nonparticipants
13%
Participants
9%
Nonparticipants
17%
Participants
12%
More than once
15%
Nonparticipants
14%
Participants
Nonparticipants
0%
24%
13%
Nonparticipants
17%
11%
Participants
20%
Once
16%
Social justice / activism Another type of activity
event or activity
* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish
engagement in college.
Figure 12: Donating to Jewish causes and volunteering under Jewish sponsorship by Taglit
participation (post-college)*
100%
80%
Nonparticipants
Participants
60%
40%
20%
21%
27%
0%
Donated to Jewish or Israeli organizations or
causes**
14%
20%
Volunteered under Jewish sponsorship***
* Predicted probabilities from binary logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish engagemen t
in college.
** Limited to respondents who made any charitable contributions.
*** Limited to respondents who engaged in any volunteer activities.
21
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 13: Engagement in Jewish religious life by Taglit participation (post-college)*
100%
80%
Nonparticipants
Participants
60%
40%
20%
14%
22%
18%
27%
25%
32%
0%
Had special Shabbat meal last
Friday night
Synagogue member
Attended Jewish religious services
in past month
* Predicted probabilities from binary logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish engagemen t
in college
religious life than nonparticipants.
Participants were significantly more likely to
have had a special Shabbat meal on the
Friday night before taking the survey, to be
synagogue members, and to have attended
Jewish religious services in the past month
(Figure 13). On the other had, Taglit
participants were not significantly more
likely to have attended a Passover seder in
the previous year.
NEXT Shabbat
NEXT Shabbat is a national program that
endeavors to boost the Jewish engagement
of post-college age Taglit alumni.9 The
program provides monetary reimbursement
and educational resources for Taglit
participants who invite friends into their
homes for a Shabbat meal. Launched in July
2008, NEXT Shabbat has a low threshold
for involvement—traditional Shabbat rituals
and kosher food are not required, and guests
do not have to be Jewish. Shabbat meals can
happen anywhere in the United States,
allowing for broad participation around the
country. This section of the report will
describe the level and patterns of
participation in NEXT Shabbat among
Taglit participants. While NEXT is targeted
specifically at post-college Taglit alumni,
undergraduates appear to be aware of and
participate in NEXT at roughly the same rate
as non-undergraduates. Consequently, the
analyses below will include Taglit
participants from both groups.
Awareness of NEXT Shabbat
Overall, 43 percent of Taglit participants had
heard of NEXT Shabbat before being asked
about it in the survey. Those participants
ages 25 and older were somewhat more
likely to have heard of the program than
younger participants (Figure 14). In
addition, those who went on a Taglit trip in
22
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 14: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by age group (Taglit participants)*
100%
80%
60%
40%
48%
43%
20%
38%
0%
Age 18-21
Age 22-24
Age 25+
* Estimated proportions.
Figure 15: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)*
100%
80%
60%
40%
58%
57%
57%
55%
Winter
2008-09
Summer
2009
Winter
2009-10
Summer
2010
44%
20%
32%
31%
33%
Winter
2006-07
Summer
2007
Winter
2007-08
0%
* Estimated proportions.
Summer
2008
23
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
2009 or 2010 were more likely to have heard
of the program than those who went on the
trip in 2007 or 2008 (Figure 15). Analyzing
multiple factors that impact awareness of the
program reveals that in addition to being
older and having gone on a trip after 2008,
women and those with more intense Jewish
backgrounds were also more likely to have
heard of the program.
Participation in NEXT Shabbat
Taglit participants who had heard of NEXT
Shabbat were asked how many times in the
past 12 months they had hosted or been a
guest at a NEXT Shabbat meal. Overall, 13
percent of Taglit participants had attended a
NEXT Shabbat meal, either as a guest or a
host, with six percent having attended a
NEXT Shabbat meal more than once. About
half of all those who attended a NEXT
Shabbat meal had also hosted a meal at least
once; the rest had been guests.
The time elapsed since a participant’s Taglit
trip is associated with the likelihood of
attending a NEXT Shabbat meal. Those who
went on a Taglit trip in 2009 or 2010 were
significantly more likely to have attended a
NEXT Shabbat meal in the past 12 months
than those who went in 2007 or 2008
(Figure 16).
A binary logistic regression model of NEXT
participation indicates that several factors
are associated with participation in NEXT
Shabbat meal. As shown in Figure 16, those
who went on the trip in 2009 or 2010 were
more likely to have attended a NEXT
Shabbat meal. In addition, older Taglit
participants and women were somewhat
more likely to have attended. Those with
more intense Jewish backgrounds were
neither more nor less likely to attend a
meal.10
Figure 16: Attending a NEXT Shabbat meal by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)*
100%
80%
60%
Attended or hosted more than once
Attended or hosted once
40%
20%
10%
7%
0%
5%
5%
4%
6%
4%
5%
5%
9%
Winter
2006-07
Summer
2007
Winter
2007-08
Summer
2008
Winter
2008-09
* Estimated proportions
9%
12%
8%
8%
10%
8%
Summer
2009
Winter
2009-10
Summer
2010
24
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Discussion
The present findings document Taglit’s
impact on participants’ Jewish identities and
Jewish engagement post-trip. Consistent
with studies of earlier Taglit cohorts, the
present study—conducted up to three and
half years after participation in Taglit—
demonstrates the program’s strong effects on
participants’ attitudes toward their Jewish
identity. Participants who took part in a
Taglit trip between 2007 and 2010 reported
greater feelings of connection to Israel and
the Jewish community as compared to
nonparticipants and a stronger desire to
marry someone Jewish and raise Jewish
children. Thus, the program continues to
produce positive attitudinal changes among
participants even as the program has evolved
and matured and the applicant pool has
changed.
The findings also shed light on the levels of
behavioral engagement with Jewish life both
on and off the college campus. More than
two-thirds of undergraduate Taglit
applicants were involved in some way in
Jewish life on campus in the year prior to the
survey. Respondents reported participating
in a variety of organizations and activities on
campus; Hillel was the most cited campus
organization and social gatherings were the
most popular activity. Although the overall
rates indicate that the majority do not attend
these events with much frequency, Taglit
has a significant impact on participation in
the organizations and activities. Taglit’s
impact on campus is related to the fact that
participation on trips makes alumni more
visible to Jewish organizations. These
organizations often partner with Taglit,
which allows them to more effectively reach
out to their target population. Taglit
participants were much more likely to be
invited to events and were also far more
likely to participate.
Among post-college respondents, overall
levels of engagement were significantly
lower than those among the undergraduate
respondents. Taglit, nevertheless, had a
small yet significant impact on participants,
with post-college participants being more
likely to attend Jewish events, donate to or
volunteer with Jewish organizations, have
Shabbat meals, join synagogues, and even
attend religious services. The analyses used
to assess Taglit’s impact in these areas also
indicated that prior experience with Jewish
life on the college campus was a strong
predictor of engagement post college.
Insofar as Taglit increases opportunities for
engagement in Jewish life on campus, it will
indirectly impact Jewish engagement later
on. To the extent that the majority of current
Taglit participants are past their college
experience, Taglit may have a lower impact
on engagement.
Overall levels of engagement in the flagship
program of alumni follow-up, NEXT
Shabbat, are also low, but in line with the
overall rates of involvement in Jewish life
among post-college young adults. Despite
the low barriers for participation in the
program and the relatively high name
recognition of the program (more than a
third had heard of it), participation rates are
between 16 to 22 percent.
Given participants’ expressed strong
connection to their Jewish identity, one
might expect that Jewish young adults, and
Taglit alumni in particular, would be more
25
26
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
involved in Jewish activities. Although
Taglit has consistent positive effects, on
most measures, the proportion of
participants who are engaged is less than a
majority. Some have argued that
engagement of Jewish young adults should
be measured “outside the box” of
mainstream Jewish institutions (Cohen &
Kelman, 2007; Kaunfer, 2010). However,
even when considering innovative Jewish
initiatives and non-institutionalized Jewish
practice, the level of Jewish engagement for
Taglit alumni, as well as the current
generation of which they are a part, is low
(Shain, Fishman, Wright, Hecht, & Saxe, in
press). To understand the findings, one
needs to appreciate the relationship between
Jewish identity and behavioral engagement.
The psychological literature is rich with
discussion of the reasons why attitudes do
not always predict behavior. From this
perspective, a global measure of Jewish
identity (e.g., how connected one feels to the
Jewish community) needs not be strongly
related to actual involvement (i.e., whether
one participates in activities or local Jewish
institutions). The strength of the attitudebehavior relationship depends on the degree
of correspondence (or compatibility)
between the attitudes and the behaviors
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Kim & Hunter,
1993; Kraus, 1995). Thus, young adults may
have strong feelings about being Jewish, but
they may not be in a stage of life in which
formal synagogue membership or other
forms of institutional connection make
sense. In addition, real-world situations and
opportunities hinder or facilitate individuals’
ability to actualize their attitudes in the form
of specific behaviors. Engagement not only
requires individual motivation, but also time,
resources, and opportunity structures.
Some of the issues that lead to a disconnect
between individuals’ Jewish identity and
their involvement with the community may
be associated with the unsettled nature of
emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004). Most of
these young adults do not have a secure job
or professional role; as well, they are highly
mobile and in the process of developing the
social networks that will stabilize only later
in life. This suggests that opportunity
structures for Jewish engagement must be
developed that are fluid and meet
individuals on their own terms (Chertok, et
al., 2009).
Taglit alumni have a heightened sense of
their Jewish identity and it seems likely, as
they come into full adult roles, that they will
be more highly involved than their peers
who did not have the experience. At the
same time, the likelihood that they will
participate in Jewish life will inevitably be
mediated by the ability of Jewish communal
institutions to serve their needs. The gap that
currently exists between Taglit alumni’s
positive attitudes and their actual behavior
may only be breached by institutions that are
able to adapt to the concerns and structural
constraints associated with emerging
adulthood. Exactly how this can be done is
beyond the scope of the present study. It is
clear, however, that the most effective
organizations will be the ones which address
a desire for community through the loose
connective structures most appropriate for
this population’s stage of life.
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Notes
1
For a comprehensive list of publications based on findings from the extensive research on Taglit, see:
http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/researchareas/taglit-publications.html.
2
See Appendix A and a detailed analysis in Wright, Fisher, & Saxe, 2012.
3
The models used in these reports control for a single index of “childhood Jewish background” which
combines the different measures of Jewish engagement reported below, namely: formal Jewish
education, high school ritual practice, parental inmarriage, and being raised Orthodox. For details of
scale construction, see page 12 and Note 5.
4
Among those Taglit participants who were not undergraduates at the time of survey, there was no
substantive difference across the various measures of engagement between those who went on Taglit
during college and those who went after graduating.
5
Because these four variables have different scales of measurement, they could not simply be averaged
or added together. The Jewish background index therefore added each variable’s standard score (“zscore”), which standardizes the mean of each variable at zero and recodes the values of that variable to
reflect the standard deviation away from that mean. Loevinger H scalability coefficients were used to
determine the optimal scale composition. The Loevinger H coefficient for the adopted scale was 0.64.
6
For an analysis of college and post-college respondents see Appendix B.
7
The vast majority (93 percent) of non-undergraduates have bachelor’s degrees. This section also
includes a small number of individuals who never attended or never completed college.
8
Taglit participants and nonparticipants were equally likely to have done any volunteer activities; each
had a 67 percent probability of having volunteered (F test, etc.). Taglit is negatively associated with
having made any charitable contributions; participants had a 66 percent probability of having donated,
compared to a 72 percent probability for nonparticipants (F test, etc.).
9
Canadian alumni are also eligible to participate in NEXT Shabbat.
10
For the regression model, see Appendix C.
27
28
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. doi: 10.1037/00332909.84.5.888
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Battaglia, M. P., Izrael, D., Hoaglin, D. C., & Frankel, M. R. (2004). Practical considerations
in raking survey data. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion
Research, Phoenix, AZ.
Chertok, F., Sasson, T., & Saxe, L. (2009). Tourists, travelers, and citizens: Jewish engagement
of young adults in four centers of North American Jewish life. Waltham, MA: Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Cohen, S. M., & Kelman, A. Y. (2007). The continuity of discontinuity: How young Jews are
connecting, creating, and organizing their own Jewish lives: Andrea and Charles
Bronfman Philanthropies.
Cohen, S. M., & Kelman, A. Y. (2008). Uncoupled: How our singles are reshaping Jewish
engagement. New York: The Jewish Identity Project of Reboot Andrea and Charles
Bronfman Philanthropies.
Deming, W. E. (1943). Statistical adjustment of data. New York: John Wiley.
Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency
table when the expected marginals are known. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11,
427-444.
Kaunfer, E. (2010). Empowered Judaism: What independent minyanim can teach us about
building vibrant Jewish communities. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.
Kim, M.-S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Attitude-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal
relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 101-142. doi: 10.1111/j.14602466.1993.tb01251.x
Kotler-Berkowitz, L., Cohen, S. M., Ament, J., Klaff, V., Mott, F., & Peckerman-Neuma, D.
(2004). The National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01: Strength, challenge and
diversity in the American Jewish Population. New York: United Jewish Communities.
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical
literature. Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58-75. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211007
Saxe, L. (2013). The Taglit-Birthright Israel generation comes of age. Paper presented at the
Taglit-Birthright Israel: An Academic Symposium, Jerusalem, Israel.
Saxe, L., & Chazan, B. (2008). Ten days of Birthright Israel: A journey in young adult identity.
Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press/ University Press of New England.
Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Hecht, S., Rosen, M. I., Phillips, B., & Kelner, S. (2004). Evaluating
Birthright Israel: Long-term impact and recent findings. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center
for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Kelner, S., Rosen, M. I., & Yereslove, E. (2002). A mega-experiment in
Jewish education: The impact of birthright israel. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for
Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
29
30
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Boxer, M., Hecht, S., Wright, G., & Sasson, T. (2008). Taglit-Birthright
Israel: Evaluation of the 2007-2008 North American cohorts. Waltham, MA: Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Sasson, T., Hecht, S., Shain, M., Wright, G., et al. (2009). Generation
Birthright Israel: The impact of an Israel experience on Jewish identity and choices.
Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Sasson, T., Hecht, S., Shain, M., Wright, G., et al. (2011). Intermarriage:
The impact and lessons of Taglit-Birthright Israel. Contemporary Jewry, 31(2), 151172. doi: 10.1007/s12397-010-9058-z
Saxe, L., Sasson, T., & Hecht, S. (2006). Taglit-Birthright Israel: Impact on Jewish identity,
peoplehood, and connection to Israel. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish
Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, L., Sasson, T., Hecht, S., Phillips, B., Shain, M., Wright, G., et al. (2011). Jewish Futures
Project: The impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel, 2010 update. Waltham, MA: Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, L., Sasson, T., Phillips, B., Hecht, S., & Wright, G. (2007). Taglit-Birthright Israel
evaluation: 2007 North American cohorts. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern
Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
Saxe, L., Shain, M., Wright, G., Hecht, S., Fishman, S., & Sasson, T. (2012). Jewish Futures
Project: The impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel: 2012 update. Waltham, MA: Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies.
Schmitz, C. (2009). LimeSurvey (Version 1.80RC3) [computer program].
Shain, M., Fishman, S., Wright, G., Hecht, S., & Saxe, L. (in press). “DIY” Judaism: How
contemporary Jewish young adults express their Jewish identity. Jewish Journal of
Sociology.
Sheskin, I. M., & Kotler-Berkowitz, L. (2007). Synagogues, Jewish Community Centers, and
other Jewish organizations: Who Joins, who doesn't? Journal of Jewish Communal
Service, 82(3).
StataCorp. (2009). Stata (Version 10.1) [computer program]. College Station, TX: StataCorp.
Taglit-Birthright Israel. (2013). CEO report 2013: Celebrating our bar/bat mitzvah year.
Jerusalem: Taglit-Birthright Israel.
Werner, J. (2003). QBAL (Version 1.52M) [computer program]. Pittsfield, MA: Jan Werner
Data Processing.
Wright, G., Fisher, T., & Saxe, L. (2012). Using dual sample surveys to examine the
relationship between response rate and bias. Paper presented at the American
Association of Public Opinion Research 67th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Appendix A: Methodology
Study Design
Target population - This report discusses results from a survey of eligible applicants to the TaglitBirthright Israel program. The program offers free ten-day educational peer trips to Israel. Trips are
offered twice a year in the winter and in the summer (each trip season is hereafter referred to as
“round”). The target population of the survey discussed here is the pool of applicants for the rounds
between winter of 2006/2007 and the summer of 2010. There were a total of 131,804 eligible applicants
to these rounds.1
Sampling plan- The objective of this study was to survey the entire target population (N=131,804),
essentially conducting a “failed census.” However, it was expected that without extensive follow-up
efforts (which would not be feasible for such a large group) the achieved response rate would not be
high enough to ensure an unbiased respondent pool. Thus, in order to assess (and potentially correct
for) the extent of any bias due to low response rate in the surveyed population, a representative sample
(N=3,000) was selected for intensive follow-up with the aim of achieving a sufficiently high response rate
for this sub-group. This group is referred to here as the “sample” and the remainder of the target
population is referred to as the “frame.”
Stratification - The target population was stratified by round, participant status, age (over/under age
25), and gender. To cut down on the number of strata, round was collapsed into “year of application”
so, for example winter 2006/7 and summer 2007 were both treated as “2007” for purposes of
stratification. This led to the creation of 32 mutually exclusive strata. The selected sample (N=3,000)
corresponds to approximately 2.276% of the total target population and was designed to be perfectly
representative of it. Thus, 2.276% of the applicants in each stratum were randomly selected to be
included in the sample. The remainder of each stratum was assigned to the frame. For logistical reasons
both the sample and the frame were divided into four equally sized and equally representative
replicates. Due to the use of random selection and the stratification scheme each of the eight replicates
are representative of the entire population with respect to the stratification variables.
1
For applicants who applied to multiple rounds, the latest eligible round of application was chosen. Ineligible and
duplicate records were dropped.
31
32
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Table 1: Characteristics of Sampling Strata
Year
2007
Participant
Age
Status
Nonparticipant Under
25
25+
Participant
2008
Nonparticipant Under
25
25+
Participant
2009
Under
25
25+
Nonparticipant Under
25
25+
Participant
Total
Under
25
25+
Nonparticipant Under
25
25+
Participant
2010
Under
25
25+
Under
25
25+
Sex
total N
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
1,195
1,379
1,598
1,643
4,799
6,461
6,054
6,383
3,171
3,787
2,401
2,517
7,704
9,911
6,867
7,375
5,566
6,756
2,473
2,687
4,320
5,309
3,505
3,520
3,103
4,236
1,221
1,431
4,227
5,557
2,162
2,486
131,804
% of
total
0.91
1.05
1.21
1.25
3.64
4.9
4.59
4.84
2.41
2.87
1.82
1.91
5.85
7.52
5.21
5.6
4.22
5.13
1.88
2.04
3.28
4.03
2.66
2.67
2.35
3.21
0.93
1.09
3.21
4.22
1.64
1.89
Sample
N
27
31
36
37
109
147
138
145
72
86
55
57
175
226
156
168
127
154
56
61
98
121
80
80
71
96
28
33
96
126
49
57
3,000
Frame
N
1,168
1,348
1,562
1,606
4,690
6,314
5,916
6,238
3,099
3,701
2,346
2,460
7,529
9,685
6,711
7,207
5,439
6,602
2,417
2,626
4,222
5,188
3,425
3,440
3,032
4,140
1,193
1,398
4,131
5,431
2,113
2,429
128,804
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Final survey population – The survey was administered to the replicates in a staggered manner—first
being released to two frame replicates. During field operations it became evident that response rates for
the initial two frame replicates were even lower than expected. It was decided to forgo the release of
the final two frame replicates and simply use the first two replicates as a large representative sample,
instead of the failed census that would have resulted from release of all four replicates. Consequently
the “frame” group mentioned below refers only to these two released replicates (N=64,454) and not
the entire remainder of the target population. Since each replicate (for either the “sample” or “frame”)
is a stratified random sample of the entire population, the “frame” and “sample” can both be
considered stratified random samples of the underlying population, as can their combination. See below
for a description of the response rates for the two groups.
Field Operations
This study utilized an online web based survey. The Web survey was designed using an online
instrument, created in LimeSurvey (Schmitz, 2009).2 The survey was administered between February
and March of 2011. Individuals in the “frame” were sent emails inviting them to take the survey, and
offered entry into a lottery for one of a number of $100 or $200 Amazon.com gift cards if they
completed the survey. Three additional email reminders were also sent to nonrespondents encouraging
them to complete the survey. Members of the “sample” were likewise sent email invitations (and two
additional email reminders) but promised a guaranteed Amazon.com gift card for survey completion. As
a methodological experiment, members of the third sample replicate were offered $25 Amazon.com gift
cards, while members of three other sample replicates were offered $15 Amazon.com gift cards.
Approximately two weeks after the initial email invitation members of the sample who had not yet
responded were called and encouraged to complete the survey online. The callers did not actually
administer the survey to the respondents, but simply encouraged the respondents to complete it on
their own, and, in many cases, re-emailed the unique URL to an email address of the respondent’s
choosing. Because the survey was, in all cases, administered online, there are no mode effects across
the different groups.
2
Cohen Center staff made some modifications to the source code of Lime Survey before using it for this study
(LimeSurvey is open-source software released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v. 2). These
modifications were mainly to allow greater compatibility between Lime Survey and the in-house CATI and bulkemail sending systems.
33
34
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Dispositions and Response rate
Table 2 shows the final dispositions and response rates for the sample and frame. As expected, the
response rate for the sample was significantly higher than that for the frame.
Table 2: Final Dispositions and Response Rates
Taglit Participants
Taglit Non-Participants
Frame
Sample
Overall
Frame
Sample
Overall
Frame
Total
Sample
Overall
4,184
1,047
5,231
1,780
404
2,184
5,964
1,451
7,415
140
13
153
65
4
94
230
17
247
120
7
127
90
2
67
185
9
194
Non-respondent
38,049
926
38,975
20,026
593
20,619
58,075
1,519
59,594
Total Sample
42,493
1,993
44,486
21,961
1,003
22,964
64,454
2,996
67,450
AAPOR Response Rate 1
9.85%
52.53%
11.76%
8.11%
40.28%
9.51%
9.25%
48.43%
10.99%
AAPOR Response Rate 2
10.18%
53.19%
12.10%
8.40%
40.68%
9.92%
9.60%
49.0%
11.36%
1
Complete
Partial
2
3
Break-Off
1
Completed at least 80% of the questions asked.
Completed 50-80% of the questions asked.
Completed less than 50% of the questions asked.
2
3
Weighting
Design Weights
The design weights for a stratified survey are simply the inverse of the probability of selection. For a
given strata h, the design weight is calculated as the total population of that strata over the number of
respondents in that strata:
Thus each case is assigned a weight equal to the number of elements in the population of the frame it
“represents.” In this case individuals in a given strata were assigned a weight equal to the frame
population of that strata. Cases from both the sample and the main are treated identically in the
calculation of design weights.
Comparison of sample and frame
It was expected that the sample would have a significantly higher response rate than the frame, due to
the addition of guaranteed incentives and phone follow up. By comparing the two groups the bias
associated with the lower response rate could be assessed, and, in principal, the lower response rate
frame cases could be adjusted to the marginals of the higher response rate sample. However, when the
two groups were compared on a number of key variables, there was virtually no difference.
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Poststratification Weights
Since there were little or no substantive differences between the sample and frame groups
poststratification weights were calculated for the entire achieved sample in order to adjust for any
differences between the distribution of known characteristics of the sample and known characteristics
of the target population (known characteristics were derived from the Taglit registration database). In
addition to the characteristics used in initial stratification (participant status, year of birth, and sex),
information on Jewish denomination at time of application to the trip was available. Poststratification
weights ( ) were created by raking within weighting stratum, where the sum of the weights was set to
remain constant.3 (See below for a description of raking.) The subscript j (where
) is used
to distinguish poststratification weights, which could vary across cases within weighting stratum,
compared to the design weights, , which remained constant within weighting stratum.
Table 3. Characteristics of Weights
Weight
Unweighted
Design weights
Final raked weights
n
Mean
7,645
7,645
7,645
1.00
17.20
17.20
Std.
dev.
0.00
4.95
5.08
Min
1.00
7.80
7.12
Max:Min
ratio
1.00
1.00
28.45
3.64
35.63
5.00
Max
Calculation of Confidence Intervals
Confidence intervals in tables and figures in this report were calculated at the 95% level using Stata’s
(2009) survey commands set up for a stratified survey (where the strata are defined as the weighting
strata) with simple random sampling within strata.
3
Raking was carried out using QBAL (Werner, 2003).
35
36
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Raking
Raking, also known as sample balancing and iterative proportional fitting (Deming, 1943), is a
procedure that adjusts the marginal frequencies of a survey to the known marginal frequencies of a
population. For example, one might have a population divided on sex and handedness (left and right)
as follows:
Handed
R
L
Total
Population
Sex
M
F
.45
.45
.05
.05
.50
.50
Survey
Total
.90
.10
1
Handed
R
L
Total
M
.25
.05
.30
Sex
F
.60
.10
.70
Total
.85
.15
1
Compared to the population, right-handers are somewhat underrepresented in the survey while lefthanders are somewhat overrepresented. Initially, all right-handers would receive weights of 0.90/0.85
(c. 1.06), while left-handers would receive weights of (c. 0.67). The resulting adjusted table would then
be:
Handed
R
L
Total
M
.265
.033
.298
Sex
F
.635
.067
.702
Total
.900
.100
Subsequently, sex would be adjusted to match the desired marginal totals, with males receiving an
additional weight of 0.50/0.298 (c. 1.678) and females receiving a weight of 0.5/0.702 (c. 0.712). After
this transformation, the weighted frequencies would be:
Handed
R
L
Total
M
.444
.056
.500
Sex
F
.453
.047
.500
Total
.897
.103
Further raking would yield additional weights of c. 1.003 for men and 0.971 for women and a marginal
frequency of .4998 for men and .5002 for women. Additional iterations could take place until a desired
level of precision was reached. (Precision is defined in raking in terms of the sum of the weighted
squares of the residuals, the difference between the expected and observed frequency in a cell;
Battaglia, Izrael, Hoaglin, & Frankel, 2004; Deming & Stephan, 1940.) The final weights for each cell are
approximately 1.783 for male right-handers, 1.082 for male left-handers, 0.757 for female righthanders and 0.459 for female left-handers.
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Appendix B: Attitudinal Impact of Taglit for Undergraduates and NonUndergraduates
Figure 1: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (undergraduates)*
* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.
37
38
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 2: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (post-college)*
* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish
engagement in college
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 1: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation
(undergraduates)
Connection to Israel
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7338
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7305)
Prob > F
=
7338
= 125567.14
=
1720
= 28910.859
=
7307
=
89.98
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conisr | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
4.099914
.4241144
13.64
0.000
3.347402
5.021594
jbackground |
1.257756
.0261974
11.01
0.000
1.207436
1.310173
age |
.9550767
.0312299
-1.41
0.160
.8957779
1.018301
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.738435
.7193957
-3.81
0.000
-4.148659
-1.328212
/cut2 | -.7201024
.7129515
-1.01
0.313
-2.117693
.6774884
/cut3 |
.8230366
.7139234
1.15
0.249
-.5764594
2.222533
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conisr
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1632
0.4316
0.2781
0.1271
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.1247,
0.2017]
0.3917,
0.4714]
0.2407,
0.3156]
0.0965,
0.1577]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conisr
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0454
0.2182
0.3626
0.3738
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0336,
0.0572]
0.1821,
0.2543]
0.3354,
0.3898]
0.3216,
0.4261]
age
24.747265
39
40
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Part of a worldwide Jewish community
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7327
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7294)
Prob > F
=
7327
= 125386.79
=
1709
= 28730.506
=
7296
=
44.27
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conwrldjcomm | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.944055
.1945455
6.64
0.000
1.597765
2.365398
jbackground |
1.196061
.022276
9.61
0.000
1.153181
1.240535
age |
.9266951
.0288846
-2.44
0.015
.8717681
.9850829
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -3.713648
.6842035
-5.43
0.000
-5.054884
-2.372411
/cut2 | -2.044913
.6792101
-3.01
0.003
-3.376361
-.7134649
/cut3 | -.5152472
.6786801
-0.76
0.448
-1.845656
.8151621
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1352
0.3182
0.3396
0.2071
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.1017,
0.1687]
0.2779,
0.3584]
0.3093,
0.3699]
0.1644,
0.2499]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0744
0.2246
0.3642
0.3368
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0563,
0.0925]
0.1909,
0.2583]
0.3394,
0.3890]
0.2884,
0.3851]
age
24.747265
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Connection to local Jewish Community
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7327
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7294)
Prob > F
=
7327
= 125386.79
=
1709
= 28730.506
=
7296
=
56.28
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conlocaljcomm | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.62848
.1568567
5.06
0.000
1.34828
1.96691
jbackground |
1.203286
.0201953
11.03
0.000
1.164342
1.243533
age |
.8646591
.0256473
-4.90
0.000
.8158167
.9164257
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -4.359598
.6480228
-6.73
0.000
-5.62991
-3.089286
/cut2 | -2.970489
.6411076
-4.63
0.000
-4.227245
-1.713732
/cut3 | -1.605666
.6379344
-2.52
0.012
-2.856202
-.3551298
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.3126
0.3333
0.2313
0.1228
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.2600,
0.3651]
0.3061,
0.3606]
0.1985,
0.2641]
0.0943,
0.1514]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2183
0.3100
0.2860
0.1857
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.1821,
0.2544]
0.2814,
0.3386]
0.2581,
0.3139]
0.1531,
0.2183]
age
24.747265
41
42
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Connection to Jewish peers
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7327
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7294)
Prob > F
=
7327
= 125386.79
=
1709
= 28730.506
=
7296
=
37.97
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conjpeers | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.582806
.1570742
4.63
0.000
1.302994
1.922707
jbackground |
1.202816
.0231149
9.61
0.000
1.158347
1.248992
age |
.9169108
.0301471
-2.64
0.008
.859678
.9779538
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -4.545802
.7226295
-6.29
0.000
-5.962365
-3.129239
/cut2 | -2.527898
.7173779
-3.52
0.000
-3.934167
-1.12163
/cut3 | -.9809528
.7161951
-1.37
0.171
-2.384902
.4229968
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conjpeers
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0812
0.3181
0.3581
0.2426
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.0573,
0.1051]
0.2716,
0.3647]
0.3303,
0.3859]
0.1944,
0.2908]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conjpeers
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0529
0.2429
0.3678
0.3364
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0378,
0.0679]
0.2047,
0.2811]
0.3429,
0.3928]
0.2860,
0.3868]
age
24.747265
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 2: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (postcollege). Controlling for campus engagement to make comparable with other
non-undergrad models.
Connection to Israel
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6863
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6828)
Prob > F
=
6863
= 117515.15
=
5034
= 86671.925
=
6831
=
142.10
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conisr | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
3.118838
.2062532
17.20
0.000
2.739629
3.550536
jbackground |
1.20868
.0150465
15.22
0.000
1.179541
1.238539
age |
.9625404
.0118911
-3.09
0.002
.9395102
.9861351
campus |
1.460657
.0978168
5.66
0.000
1.280959
1.665564
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.617044
.3331412
-7.86
0.000
-3.270104
-1.963984
/cut2 | -.4031113
.3295085
-1.22
0.221
-1.049051
.2428279
/cut3 |
1.207937
.3298352
3.66
0.000
.5613572
1.854517
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conisr
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1200
0.4352
0.3069
0.1379
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.1052,
0.1349]
0.4136,
0.4568]
0.2889,
0.3248]
0.1227,
0.1530]
age
24.747265
campus
.77057955
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conisr
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0419
0.2439
0.3813
0.3328
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0370,
0.0468]
0.2299,
0.2580]
0.3662,
0.3964]
0.3158,
0.3498]
age
24.747265
campus
.77057955
43
44
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Connection to worldwide Jewish community
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6837
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
5,
6801)
Prob > F
=
6837
= 117006.46
=
5008
= 86163.236
=
6805
=
83.03
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conwrldjcomm |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
.3518671
.0616701
5.71
0.000
.2309743
.4727598
jbackground |
.1730863
.0141158
12.26
0.000
.1454148
.2007577
age | -.0366256
.0122229
-3.00
0.003
-.0605863
-.0126648
campus |
.7835066
.0669917
11.70
0.000
.6521819
.9148313
orthodox | -.3157956
.2620877
-1.20
0.228
-.8295695
.1979783
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.713995
.3317945
-8.18
0.000
-3.364416
-2.063574
/cut2 | -.6737066
.3270229
-2.06
0.039
-1.314774
-.0326393
/cut3 |
.9342009
.3261595
2.86
0.004
.2948263
1.573576
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0811
0.3233
0.3678
0.2278
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.0704,
0.0918]
0.3026,
0.3440]
0.3521,
0.3835]
0.2079,
0.2478]
age
24.747265
campus
.77151335
orthodox
.0317716
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
.
participant
1
0.0584
0.2647
0.3813
0.2955
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0518,
0.0651]
0.2501,
0.2794]
0.3665,
0.3961]
0.2794,
0.3116]
age
24.747265
campus
.77151335
orthodox
.0317716
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Connection to local Jewish community
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6838
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6803)
Prob > F
=
6838
= 117028.78
=
5009
= 86185.555
=
6806
=
106.11
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conlocaljcomm | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.227723
.0742974
3.39
0.001
1.090385
1.382361
jbackground |
1.184049
.0144531
13.84
0.000
1.156053
1.212723
age |
.9666714
.011564
-2.83
0.005
.944266
.9896084
campus |
2.26625
.1528583
12.13
0.000
1.985565
2.586613
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -1.099832
.3192674
-3.44
0.001
-1.725696
-.4739682
/cut2 |
.2853786
.3192333
0.89
0.371
-.3404185
.9111756
/cut3 |
1.816845
.3216231
5.65
0.000
1.186363
2.447327
------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2855
0.3294
0.2658
0.1192
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.2630,
0.3081]
0.3149,
0.3439]
0.2483,
0.2834]
0.1061,
0.1324]
age
24.747265
campus
.77155572
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2456
0.3198
0.2921
0.1425
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.2307,
0.2605]
0.3057,
0.3338]
0.2773,
0.3070]
0.1310,
0.1541]
age
24.747265
campus
.77155572
45
46
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Connection to Jewish peers
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6836
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6801)
Prob > F
=
6836
= 116995.7
=
5007
= 86152.476
=
6804
=
100.28
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conjpeers | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.313028
.0814482
4.39
0.000
1.16269
1.482805
jbackground |
1.171941
.0140691
13.22
0.000
1.144684
1.199848
age |
.984801
.0122734
-1.23
0.219
.9610329
1.009157
campus |
2.364948
.1603953
12.69
0.000
2.070529
2.701233
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.435313
.3328788
-7.32
0.000
-3.08786
-1.782767
/cut2 | -.3855634
.3277036
-1.18
0.239
-1.027965
.2568382
/cut3 |
1.375409
.3279361
4.19
0.000
.7325518
2.018266
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conjpeers
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0604
0.2727
0.4109
0.2560
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.0518,
0.0690]
0.2526,
0.2928]
0.3958,
0.4260]
0.2345,
0.2775]
age
24.747265
campus
.77165646
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conjpeers
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0467
0.2289
0.4132
0.3112
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0407,
0.0527]
0.2152,
0.2426]
0.3983,
0.4282]
0.2948,
0.3276]
age
24.747265
campus
.77165646
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Appendix C: Tables
Figure 6: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation
(undergraduate and post-college)
Connection to Israel
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
7193
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7159)
Prob > F
=
7193
= 123246.95
=
7193
= 123246.95
=
7161
=
288.28
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conisr | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
3.217168
.172845
21.75
0.000
2.895573
3.574481
jbackground |
1.234006
.0123365
21.03
0.000
1.210058
1.258428
age |
.9571475
.0082266
-5.10
0.000
.9411559
.9734107
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.964825
.2175934
-13.63
0.000
-3.391373
-2.538278
/cut2 | -.8484915
.2128106
-3.99
0.000
-1.265663
-.4313199
/cut3 |
.7364116
.2127108
3.46
0.001
.3194357
1.153388
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conisr
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1288
0.4222
0.3059
0.1432
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.1161,
0.1414]
0.4048,
0.4395]
0.2916,
0.3202]
0.1307,
0.1556]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conisr
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0439
0.2321
0.3743
0.3496
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0398,
0.0481]
0.2212,
0.2431]
0.3617,
0.3869]
0.3360,
0.3632]
age
24.747265
47
48
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Connection to worldwide Jewish community
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
7154
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7120)
Prob > F
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
7154
122514.9
7154
122514.9
7122
150.63
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conwrldjcomm | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.551975
.0783984
8.70
0.000
1.405655
1.713526
jbackground |
1.187533
.0113014
18.06
0.000
1.165585
1.209895
age |
.9457254
.0080005
-6.60
0.000
.9301714
.9615395
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -3.605105
.2181892
-16.52
0.000
-4.03282
-3.177389
/cut2 | -1.699293
.2122828
-8.00
0.000
-2.115431
-1.283156
/cut3 | -.1342366
.2108861
-0.64
0.524
-.5476359
.2791628
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0954
0.3195
0.3574
0.2277
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.0856,
0.1052]
0.3034,
0.3357]
0.3447,
0.3701]
0.2118,
0.2436]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0636
0.2500
0.3724
0.3139
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0579,
0.0694]
0.2387,
0.2613]
0.3603,
0.3846]
0.3008,
0.3270]
age
24.747265
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Importance of marrying a Jew
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
7155
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7121)
Prob > F
=
7155
= 122537.22
=
7155
= 122537.22
=
7123
=
186.93
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conlocaljcomm | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.313296
.0648511
5.52
0.000
1.192127
1.446779
jbackground |
1.195168
.0109031
19.54
0.000
1.173984
1.216733
age |
.9187525
.0076985
-10.11
0.000
.9037843
.9339686
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.999901
.2091625
-14.34
0.000
-3.409922
-2.58988
/cut2 | -1.669131
.2071253
-8.06
0.000
-2.075158
-1.263104
/cut3 | -.2123508
.2075266
-1.02
0.306
-.6191647
.1944631
------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2831
0.3160
0.2660
0.1349
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.2655,
0.3008]
0.3039,
0.3281]
0.2524,
0.2797]
0.1236,
0.1462]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2312
0.3011
0.2978
0.1700
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.2196,
0.2427]
0.2896,
0.3125]
0.2857,
0.3099]
0.1599,
0.1800]
age
24.747265
49
50
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Importance of raising kids Jewish
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
7153
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7119)
Prob > F
=
7153
= 122504.14
=
7153
= 122504.14
=
7121
=
135.92
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
conjpeers | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.404513
.071432
6.68
0.000
1.271239
1.551759
jbackground |
1.1907
.0114308
18.18
0.000
1.168502
1.21332
age |
.9602034
.0083488
-4.67
0.000
.943976
.9767099
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -3.593858
.2205814
-16.29
0.000
-4.026263
-3.161453
/cut2 | -1.616625
.2158167
-7.49
0.000
-2.03969
-1.19356
/cut3 |
.0474102
.2149397
0.22
0.825
-.3739355
.4687558
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conjpeers
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0682
0.2776
0.3904
0.2637
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.0605,
0.0759]
0.2615,
0.2938]
0.3781,
0.4027]
0.2462,
0.2813]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for conjpeers
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_at_a|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_muc|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0495
0.2239
0.3918
0.3347
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0444,
0.0546]
0.2131,
0.2348]
0.3796,
0.4040]
0.3214,
0.3480]
age
24.747265
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 7: Importance of being Jewish and forming a Jewish family by Taglit
participation
Importance of marrying a Jew
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6025
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
5991)
Prob > F
=
6025
= 103043.26
=
6025
= 103043.26
=
5993
=
292.53
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recimpmrryjew | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.584985
.0871186
8.38
0.000
1.42308
1.765309
jbackground |
1.512382
.0222651
28.10
0.000
1.469358
1.556665
age |
.9528539
.0092868
-4.96
0.000
.9348213
.9712345
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -2.258821
.2394495
-9.43
0.000
-2.728228
-1.789413
/cut2 | -1.253876
.2379293
-5.27
0.000
-1.720303
-.7874486
/cut3 | -.0495858
.2377203
-0.21
0.835
-.5156032
.4164316
------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for recimpmrryjew
Confidence intervals by delta method
x=
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=2|x):
Pr(y=3|x):
Pr(y=4|x):
0.2452
0.2250
0.2772
0.2526
participant
0
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.2264,
0.2639]
0.2118,
0.2382]
0.2635,
0.2910]
0.2339,
0.2714]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for recimpmrryjew
Confidence intervals by delta method
x=
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=2|x):
Pr(y=3|x):
Pr(y=4|x):
0.1701
0.1888
0.2923
0.3489
participant
1
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.1587,
0.1814]
0.1778,
0.1998]
0.2788,
0.3057]
0.3333,
0.3644]
age
24.747265
51
52
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Importance of raising kids jewish
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6459
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
6425)
Prob > F
=
6459
= 110500.62
=
6459
= 110500.62
=
6427
=
223.84
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recfutchild | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.693277
.0941927
9.47
0.000
1.518339
1.88837
jbackground |
1.469045
.0234297
24.12
0.000
1.423825
1.515701
age |
.9725496
.0093119
-2.91
0.004
.9544654
.9909765
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -3.009235
.2427826
-12.39
0.000
-3.48517
-2.5333
/cut2 | -1.764976
.2394798
-7.37
0.000
-2.234436
-1.295515
/cut3 | -.6031721
.2385193
-2.53
0.011
-1.070749
-.1355949
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for recfutchild
Confidence intervals by delta method
x=
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=2|x):
Pr(y=3|x):
Pr(y=4|x):
0.0849
0.1587
0.2636
0.4928
participant
0
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0754,
0.0945]
0.1458,
0.1716]
0.2501,
0.2771]
0.4688,
0.5167]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for recfutchild
Confidence intervals by delta method
x=
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=2|x):
Pr(y=3|x):
Pr(y=4|x):
0.0520
0.1079
0.2183
0.6219
participant
1
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0466,
0.0573]
0.0996,
0.1161]
0.2070,
0.2295]
0.6059,
0.6380]
age
24.747265
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Importance of being Jewish
Survey: Ordered logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
7152
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
3,
7118)
Prob > F
=
7152
= 122503.52
=
7152
= 122503.52
=
7120
=
178.75
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
impbejew | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.563738
.0811554
8.61
0.000
1.412474
1.7312
jbackground |
1.295612
.015587
21.53
0.000
1.265414
1.32653
age |
.9831024
.0086092
-1.95
0.052
.9663698
1.000125
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------/cut1 | -3.428925
.2248367
-15.25
0.000
-3.869671
-2.988178
/cut2 | -1.549627
.2184171
-7.09
0.000
-1.977789
-1.121464
/cut3 | -.0979647
.2178289
-0.45
0.653
-.524974
.3290446
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackground
. local a=meanage
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for impbejew
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_impo|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_imp|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0454
0.1922
0.3334
0.4291
[
[
[
[
jbackground
.14731941
95% Conf. Interval
0.0393,
0.0515]
0.1780,
0.2063]
0.3202,
0.3465]
0.4075,
0.4506]
age
24.747265
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
ologit: Predictions for impbejew
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Not_impo|x):
Pr(y=A_little|x):
Pr(y=Somewhat|x):
Pr(y=Very_imp|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0295
0.1366
0.2936
0.5403
jbackground
.14731941
[
[
[
[
95% Conf. Interval
0.0257,
0.0333]
0.1278,
0.1454]
0.2820,
0.3052]
0.5254,
0.5552]
age
24.747265
53
54
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 8: Being invited to activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish
organizations by Taglit participation
Being invited to Hillel
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7281
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7245)
Prob > F
=
7281
= 124582.94
=
1663
= 27926.662
=
7250
=
22.67
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
rechillelin~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.5134619
.1881915
2.73
0.006
.1445517
.8823721
jbackground | -.0361351
.0348214
-1.04
0.299
-.1043952
.0321249
age | -.1254548
.0575031
-2.18
0.029
-.2381777
-.0127319
_cons |
1.841372
1.281084
1.44
0.151
-.6699261
4.35267
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
1.065389
.1341132
7.94
0.000
.8024881
1.32829
jbackground |
-.010742
.0241537
-0.44
0.657
-.0580904
.0366064
age | -.3827646
.0422618
-9.06
0.000
-.46561
-.2999191
_cons |
8.829728
.9287095
9.51
0.000
7.009187
10.65027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for rechillelinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1347
0.5228
0.3426
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1063,
0.1631]
[ 0.4801,
0.5654]
[ 0.3019,
0.3832]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for rechillelinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1080
0.7277
0.1643
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0877,
0.1282]
[ 0.6983,
0.7571]
[ 0.1396,
0.1890]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Being invited to Chabad
. svy, subpop(subpop if undergradsvy==1): mlogit recchabadinvite participant jbackground age,
base(0)
(running mlogit on estimation sample)
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7266
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7230)
Prob > F
=
7266
= 124366.15
=
1648
= 27709.868
=
7235
=
18.43
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recchabadin~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.436478
.1896073
2.30
0.021
.0647924
.8081636
jbackground |
.1597508
.0332923
4.80
0.000
.0944882
.2250133
age | -.1983958
.0542854
-3.65
0.000
-.3048111
-.0919805
_cons |
2.431129
1.185451
2.05
0.040
.1072986
4.75496
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
.4625385
.1212736
3.81
0.000
.2248068
.7002702
jbackground |
.1914994
.0231597
8.27
0.000
.1460997
.2368991
age | -.2068873
.0404399
-5.12
0.000
-.2861613
-.1276133
_cons |
3.913964
.8757294
4.47
0.000
2.197279
5.63065
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recchabadinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0913
0.3404
0.5683
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0670,
0.1157]
[ 0.2980,
0.3827]
[ 0.5236,
0.6130]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recchabadinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1131
0.4324
0.4546
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0922,
0.1339]
[ 0.4002,
0.4645]
[ 0.4221,
0.4871]
age
21.947208
55
56
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Being invited to J frat
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7279
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7243)
Prob > F
=
7279
= 124546.19
=
1661
= 27889.906
=
7248
=
8.98
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recjfratinv~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.2100738
.1616032
1.30
0.194
-.1067156
.5268632
jbackground |
.0069823
.0266706
0.26
0.793
-.0452999
.0592644
age | -.2195389
.0563756
-3.89
0.000
-.3300515
-.1090263
_cons |
3.226428
1.229459
2.62
0.009
.8163302
5.636527
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
.3727898
.1232958
3.02
0.003
.1310942
.6144855
jbackground |
.0142394
.0189059
0.75
0.451
-.0228218
.0513005
age | -.3075846
.0512536
-6.00
0.000
-.4080567
-.2071126
_cons |
5.828708
1.110283
5.25
0.000
3.65223
8.005187
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recjfratinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1273
0.2498
0.6228
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1000,
0.1546]
[ 0.2135,
0.2862]
[ 0.5820,
0.6637]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recjfratinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1375
0.3174
0.5451
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1152,
0.1597]
[ 0.2875,
0.3474]
[ 0.5129,
0.5773]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Being invited to other
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7270
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7234)
Prob > F
=
7270
= 124439.49
=
1652
= 27783.21
=
7239
=
5.91
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recothgrpin~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.3593546
.2734285
1.31
0.189
-.176645
.8953542
jbackground |
.0420417
.0388899
1.08
0.280
-.0341939
.1182773
age |
.0058276
.0718241
0.08
0.935
-.1349686
.1466237
_cons |
-3.25203
1.577606
-2.06
0.039
-6.344599
-.1594616
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
.5358522
.1554388
3.45
0.001
.2311467
.8405576
jbackground |
.0535454
.0194473
2.75
0.006
.015423
.0916678
age | -.2485805
.0612171
-4.06
0.000
-.3685839
-.1285771
_cons |
3.426306
1.316477
2.60
0.009
.845627
6.006984
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0382
0.1149
0.8469
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0221,
0.0543]
[ 0.0881,
0.1417]
[ 0.8167,
0.8772]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpinvite
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0498
0.1788
0.7713
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0356,
0.0641]
[ 0.1541,
0.2036]
[ 0.7442,
0.7985]
age
21.947208
57
58
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 9 : Participating in activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish
organizations by Taglit participation
Engaged
Hillel
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7276
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7240)
Prob > F
=
7276
= 124455.51
=
1658
= 27799.229
=
7245
=
24.62
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
rechillelen~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.2712783
.1374167
1.97
0.048
.0019016
.540655
jbackground |
.0044655
.0231894
0.19
0.847
-.0409926
.0499236
age | -.2803584
.0431056
-6.50
0.000
-.364858
-.1958587
_cons |
5.247171
.9437638
5.56
0.000
3.397119
7.097223
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
1.124382
.1362233
8.25
0.000
.8573441
1.391419
jbackground |
.0630491
.0212259
2.97
0.003
.0214402
.104658
age |
-.442881
.0534131
-8.29
0.000
-.5475862
-.3381758
_cons |
8.500233
1.146622
7.41
0.000
6.252521
10.74795
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for rechillelengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2367
0.1791
0.5842
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.2012,
0.2723]
[ 0.1471,
0.2111]
[ 0.5422,
0.6261]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for rechillelengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2147
0.3813
0.4040
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1877,
0.2418]
[ 0.3491,
0.4135]
[ 0.3714,
0.4366]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Engaged Chabad
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7262
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7226)
Prob > F
=
7262
= 124236.55
=
1644
= 27580.268
=
7231
=
17.01
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recchabaden~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.1996125
.1634109
1.22
0.222
-.1207206
.5199456
jbackground |
.1704479
.0247243
6.89
0.000
.1219811
.2189147
age | -.0625576
.0474242
-1.32
0.187
-.1555229
.0304078
_cons | -.4879479
1.028409
-0.47
0.635
-2.50393
1.528034
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
.3897449
.1588977
2.45
0.014
.0782589
.7012309
jbackground |
.2283389
.0247203
9.24
0.000
.1798798
.276798
age | -.1515095
.0549356
-2.76
0.006
-.2591993
-.0438196
_cons |
1.437759
1.181709
1.22
0.224
-.8787366
3.754254
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recchabadengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1279
0.1289
0.7431
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0994,
0.1564]
[ 0.1001,
0.1578]
[ 0.7050,
0.7813]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recchabadengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1433
0.1747
0.6820
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1207,
0.1659]
[ 0.1499,
0.1996]
[ 0.6513,
0.7126]
age
21.947208
59
60
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Engaged Jewish fraternity
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7269
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7233)
Prob > F
=
7269
=
124350
=
1651
= 27693.719
=
7238
=
9.16
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recjfrateng~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.3420663
.1580722
2.16
0.030
.0321987
.651934
jbackground |
.0104575
.0232689
0.45
0.653
-.0351564
.0560713
age |
-.235585
.0710944
-3.31
0.001
-.3749507
-.0962193
_cons |
3.289087
1.5468
2.13
0.034
.2569077
6.321266
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
.3969875
.150718
2.63
0.008
.1015363
.6924387
jbackground |
.0100597
.0198293
0.51
0.612
-.0288115
.0489308
age | -.3311063
.0532796
-6.21
0.000
-.4355499
-.2266627
_cons |
5.459319
1.144362
4.77
0.000
3.216035
7.702603
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recjfratengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1163
0.1252
0.7585
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0903,
0.1423]
[ 0.0981,
0.1523]
[ 0.7233,
0.7937]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recjfratengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1477
0.1680
0.6843
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1246,
0.1708]
[ 0.1442,
0.1917]
[ 0.6543,
0.7143]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Engaged
other
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7249
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7213)
Prob > F
=
7249
= 124056.38
=
1631
= 27400.096
=
7218
=
7.78
=
0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
recothgrpen~e |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------0
| (base outcome)
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once_or_twice |
participant |
.5912407
.2803663
2.11
0.035
.0416407
1.140841
jbackground | -.0036656
.0383258
-0.10
0.924
-.0787953
.0714642
age | -.1552674
.0888145
-1.75
0.080
-.3293698
.0188351
_cons |
.0339555
1.934509
0.02
0.986
-3.758248
3.826159
--------------+---------------------------------------------------------------3__times
|
participant |
.8370428
.2461898
3.40
0.001
.3544388
1.319647
jbackground |
.1010684
.0256657
3.94
0.000
.0507561
.1513808
age | -.3088655
.0926279
-3.33
0.001
-.4904432
-.1272877
_cons |
3.434243
1.997591
1.72
0.086
-.4816204
7.350107
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0319
0.0350
0.9331
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0173,
0.0465]
[ 0.0204,
0.0495]
[ 0.9128,
0.9534]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpengage
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once_or_|x):
Pr(y=3+_times|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0538
0.0754
0.8709
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0391,
0.0684]
[ 0.0573,
0.0935]
[ 0.8484,
0.8933]
age
21.947208
61
62
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 10 : Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization
(undergraduates)
Parties
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
30
7145
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7110)
Prob > F
=
7145
= 123326.06
=
1671
= 28057.698
=
7115
=
13.08
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypeparty |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.1388439
.1443742
0.96
0.336
-.1441725
.4218603
jbackground |
.0462707
.0272347
1.70
0.089
-.0071174
.0996587
age | -.0638728
.0446501
-1.43
0.153
-.1514003
.0236547
_cons |
.4833559
.9799774
0.49
0.622
-1.437691
2.404403
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.6242336
.1236066
5.05
0.000
.3819279
.8665392
jbackground |
.139448
.0219724
6.35
0.000
.0963755
.1825205
age |
-.19371
.0425905
-4.55
0.000
-.2772
-.11022
_cons |
3.593675
.9199281
3.91
0.000
1.790342
5.397008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 2 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2079
0.2853
0.5068
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1739,
0.2420]
[ 0.2478,
0.3227]
[ 0.4649,
0.5487]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1869
0.4166
0.3965
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1618,
0.2120]
[ 0.3844,
0.4488]
[ 0.3645,
0.4285]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Lectures
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7284
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7248)
Prob > F
=
7284
= 124607.62
=
1666
= 27951.337
=
7253
=
18.68
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypelecture |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.4122115
.1460165
2.82
0.005
.1259766
.6984464
jbackground |
.0890181
.0267939
3.32
0.001
.0364943
.141542
age | -.0742488
.0462871
-1.60
0.109
-.164985
.0164874
_cons |
.3112562
1.014808
0.31
0.759
-1.678062
2.300575
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.6782869
.1300481
5.22
0.000
.4233547
.9332191
jbackground |
.1989864
.0222125
8.96
0.000
.1554433
.2425294
age | -.1434456
.0469692
-3.05
0.002
-.235519
-.0513723
_cons |
2.022099
1.01895
1.98
0.047
.0246603
4.019537
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1713
0.2216
0.6071
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1397,
0.2028]
[ 0.1871,
0.2562]
[ 0.5660,
0.6482]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1986
0.3353
0.4661
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1730,
0.2242]
[ 0.3040,
0.3665]
[ 0.4331,
0.4991]
age
21.947208
63
64
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Cultural events
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
30
7130
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7095)
Prob > F
=
7130
= 123093.26
=
1656
= 27824.891
=
7100
=
15.18
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypecult |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.3628591
.1394548
2.60
0.009
.0894862
.636232
jbackground |
.0431879
.022644
1.91
0.057
-.001201
.0875768
age | -.1416405
.0458061
-3.09
0.002
-.2314342
-.0518468
_cons |
1.804828
.9952196
1.81
0.070
-.146099
3.755755
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.9767898
.1458046
6.70
0.000
.6909692
1.26261
jbackground |
.1117346
.0211722
5.28
0.000
.0702309
.1532384
age | -.2546416
.0588054
-4.33
0.000
-.3699177
-.1393655
_cons |
3.919122
1.269488
3.09
0.002
1.430547
6.407697
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 2 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1882
0.1360
0.6757
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1557,
0.2208]
[ 0.1078,
0.1642]
[ 0.6367,
0.7148]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2069
0.2763
0.5168
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1812,
0.2327]
[ 0.2471,
0.3054]
[ 0.4842,
0.5494]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Activism
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
30
7139
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7104)
Prob > F
=
7139
= 123224.77
=
1665
= 27956.405
=
7109
=
13.85
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypecomm |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.5768973
.1705737
3.38
0.001
.2425221
.9112724
jbackground |
.0796417
.0243575
3.27
0.001
.0318938
.1273896
age |
-.195302
.0619167
-3.15
0.002
-.3166772
-.0739268
_cons |
2.132551
1.331237
1.60
0.109
-.4770698
4.742171
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.8903433
.1616975
5.51
0.000
.5733681
1.207318
jbackground |
.1326439
.0210926
6.29
0.000
.0912962
.1739916
age | -.1771288
.0664051
-2.67
0.008
-.3073027
-.046955
_cons |
1.713041
1.442583
1.19
0.235
-1.11485
4.540933
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 2 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0978
0.0988
0.8034
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0728,
0.1227]
[ 0.0745,
0.1231]
[ 0.7702,
0.8366]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1429
0.1976
0.6595
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1208,
0.1649]
[ 0.1718,
0.2234]
[ 0.6289,
0.6901]
age
21.947208
65
66
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Other
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
31
7270
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
6,
7234)
Prob > F
=
7270
= 124404.87
=
1652
= 27748.593
=
7239
=
3.47
=
0.0020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypeoth |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.3666045
.3144066
1.17
0.244
-.2497242
.9829332
jbackground |
.0018869
.037685
0.05
0.960
-.0719867
.0757606
age | -.0677431
.0791143
-0.86
0.392
-.2228302
.0873439
_cons | -2.051158
1.723949
-1.19
0.234
-5.430601
1.328285
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.4980825
.1827827
2.72
0.006
.139775
.8563899
jbackground |
.0649512
.0222543
2.92
0.004
.0213262
.1085761
age | -.1197302
.0583131
-2.05
0.040
-.2340409
-.0054195
_cons |
.0996043
1.253688
0.08
0.937
-2.357991
2.557199
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members.
. local j=meanjbackgroundU
. local a=meanageU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0262
0.0746
0.8992
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0130,
0.0393]
[ 0.0537,
0.0955]
[ 0.8750,
0.9235]
age
21.947208
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0356
0.1158
0.8485
jbackground
.59508695
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0240,
0.0472]
[ 0.0958,
0.1359]
[ 0.8261,
0.8710]
age
21.947208
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 11: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (post-college)
Parties
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6769
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
8,
6730)
Prob > F
=
6769
= 115846.97
=
4940
= 85003.75
=
6737
=
36.51
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypeparty |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.2552055
.0936444
2.73
0.006
.0716329
.438778
jbackground |
.0549723
.0167071
3.29
0.001
.022221
.0877235
age | -.0212984
.0181322
-1.17
0.240
-.0568433
.0142464
campus |
.8360304
.1090162
7.67
0.000
.6223241
1.049737
_cons | -1.552917
.4819093
-3.22
0.001
-2.497611
-.6082222
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.4828433
.0884956
5.46
0.000
.3093639
.6563226
jbackground |
.1328484
.0155386
8.55
0.000
.1023877
.163309
age | -.0575083
.0173273
-3.32
0.001
-.0914754
-.0235412
campus |
1.187273
.1104889
10.75
0.000
.9706795
1.403866
_cons | -.8215684
.4664416
-1.76
0.078
-1.735941
.0928046
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1574
0.1699
0.6727
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1370,
0.1778]
[ 0.1488,
0.1909]
[ 0.6461,
0.6994]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1765
0.2391
0.5844
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1631,
0.1899]
[ 0.2239,
0.2544]
[ 0.5668,
0.6019]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
67
68
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Lectures
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6754
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
8,
6715)
Prob > F
=
6754
= 115594.95
=
4925
= 84751.731
=
6722
=
27.66
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypelecture |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.2793499
.1041748
2.68
0.007
.0751342
.4835656
jbackground |
.0508742
.0183225
2.78
0.006
.0149563
.0867921
age | -.0540889
.0205818
-2.63
0.009
-.0944358
-.0137421
campus |
.7885382
.1245917
6.33
0.000
.5442989
1.032777
_cons | -1.162668
.5464121
-2.13
0.033
-2.233809
-.0915273
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.4067507
.10064
4.04
0.000
.2094643
.604037
jbackground |
.1408904
.0168925
8.34
0.000
.1077757
.174005
age | -.0993407
.0204831
-4.85
0.000
-.139494
-.0591873
campus |
.8209172
.1213204
6.77
0.000
.5830907
1.058744
_cons |
.0571509
.5398854
0.11
0.916
-1.001196
1.115497
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1106
0.1207
0.7687
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0933,
0.1279]
[ 0.1023,
0.1391]
[ 0.7450,
0.7924]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1334
0.1654
0.7012
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1217,
0.1452]
[ 0.1521,
0.1786]
[ 0.6851,
0.7173]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Cultural events
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6744
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
8,
6705)
Prob > F
=
6744
= 115394.55
=
4915
= 84551.33
=
6712
=
23.14
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypecult |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant |
.1232238
.097196
1.27
0.205
-.0673112
.3137588
jbackground |
.0506169
.0179034
2.83
0.005
.0155205
.0857133
age |
-.007545
.019471
-0.39
0.698
-.0457143
.0306243
campus |
.781517
.1179043
6.63
0.000
.5503871
1.012647
_cons | -2.119684
.5181854
-4.09
0.000
-3.135492
-1.103876
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.5063881
.1124187
4.50
0.000
.2860119
.7267644
jbackground |
.1020411
.017271
5.91
0.000
.0681844
.1358977
age | -.0788855
.0217401
-3.63
0.000
-.121503
-.036268
campus |
1.143854
.1442159
7.93
0.000
.8611454
1.426563
_cons | -1.061427
.5686599
-1.87
0.062
-2.176181
.053327
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1401
0.0860
0.7739
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1206,
0.1595]
[ 0.0706,
0.1014]
[ 0.7504,
0.7974]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1474
0.1327
0.7199
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1350,
0.1598]
[ 0.1205,
0.1449]
[ 0.7040,
0.7358]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
69
70
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Activism
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6747
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
8,
6708)
Prob > F
=
6747
= 115451.16
=
4918
= 84607.936
=
6715
=
19.33
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypecomm |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant | -.0188917
.1203611
-0.16
0.875
-.2548377
.2170543
jbackground |
.0645103
.0208076
3.10
0.002
.0237208
.1052998
age | -.0468281
.0257554
-1.82
0.069
-.0973169
.0036608
campus |
.6925523
.1555322
4.45
0.000
.3876599
.9974448
_cons | -1.651462
.6726906
-2.46
0.014
-2.970149
-.332775
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.7593433
.1525219
4.98
0.000
.4603519
1.058335
jbackground |
.102359
.0210386
4.87
0.000
.0611167
.1436014
age | -.1543251
.0286225
-5.39
0.000
-.2104343
-.0982159
campus |
1.183764
.2070548
5.72
0.000
.7778708
1.589657
_cons | -.1229379
.7602102
-0.16
0.872
-1.613191
1.367315
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0865
0.0372
0.8763
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0707,
0.1024]
[ 0.0273,
0.0471]
[ 0.8580,
0.8946]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0816
0.0764
0.8420
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0721,
0.0911]
[ 0.0664,
0.0863]
[ 0.8289,
0.8552]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Other
Survey: Multinomial logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6712
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
8,
6673)
Prob > F
=
6712
= 114896.44
=
4883
= 84053.218
=
6680
=
7.32
=
0.0000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
acttypeoth |
Coef.
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Never
| (base outcome)
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------Once
|
participant | -.1183431
.170653
-0.69
0.488
-.4528773
.2161912
jbackground |
.0784454
.0273936
2.86
0.004
.0247452
.1321456
age |
.0276127
.0338303
0.82
0.414
-.0387055
.0939309
campus |
.4710713
.2236866
2.11
0.035
.0325741
.9095685
_cons | -4.190976
.9462103
-4.43
0.000
-6.04585
-2.336101
---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------More_than_once |
participant |
.2981011
.1473291
2.02
0.043
.009289
.5869132
jbackground |
.0738468
.0232836
3.17
0.002
.0282035
.1194901
age | -.0728668
.0295385
-2.47
0.014
-.1307717
-.0149619
campus |
.6629808
.1893574
3.50
0.000
.2917798
1.034182
_cons | -1.604183
.7910634
-2.03
0.043
-3.15492
-.0534465
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
0
0.0403
0.0474
0.9123
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0294,
0.0512]
[ 0.0358,
0.0590]
[ 0.8967,
0.9279]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Once|x):
Pr(y=More_tha|x):
Pr(y=Never|x):
x=
participant
1
0.0354
0.0631
0.9015
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.0290,
0.0417]
[ 0.0547,
0.0715]
[ 0.8912,
0.9118]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
71
72
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 12: Donating to Jewish causes and volunteering under Jewish
sponsorship by Taglit participation (post-college)
Donating
Survey: Logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6755
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6720)
Prob > F
=
6755
= 115645.21
=
4926
= 84801.991
=
6723
=
62.62
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
bindonatejew | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.391811
.1139442
4.04
0.000
1.185447
1.6341
jbackground |
1.206858
.0173401
13.09
0.000
1.17334
1.241333
age |
1.083022
.0171361
5.04
0.000
1.049945
1.11714
campus |
1.970793
.1826976
7.32
0.000
1.643305
2.363545
_cons |
.0207669
.0089786
-8.96
0.000
.0088979
.0484682
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
logit: Predictions for bindonatejew
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2130
0.7870
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1894,
0.2367]
[ 0.7633,
0.8106]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
logit: Predictions for bindonatejew
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2736
0.7264
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.2579,
0.2894]
[ 0.7106,
0.7421]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Volunteering
Survey: Logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6767
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6732)
Prob > F
=
6767
= 115763.15
=
4938
= 84919.928
=
6735
=
46.97
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
binvoljew | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.530529
.1424667
4.57
0.000
1.275248
1.836913
jbackground |
1.155565
.0173116
9.65
0.000
1.122122
1.190004
age |
.9170856
.0168073
-4.72
0.000
.8847227
.9506323
campus |
1.808647
.1974024
5.43
0.000
1.460272
2.240133
_cons |
.9334862
.4583499
-0.14
0.889
.3565212
2.444165
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. local j=meanjbackgroundNU
. local a=meanageNU
. local c=meancampusNU
. prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
logit: Predictions for binvoljew
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1387
0.8613
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1194,
0.1580]
[ 0.8420,
0.8806]
jbackground
.0106291
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
. prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c')
logit: Predictions for binvoljew
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1977
0.8023
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1838,
0.2117]
[ 0.7883,
0.8162]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
73
74
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Figure 13: Engagement in Jewish religious life by Taglit participation
(post-college)
Shabbat Meal
Survey: Logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6765
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6730)
Prob > F
=
6765
= 115813.22
=
4936
= 84969.997
=
6733
=
75.05
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
lstfri | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.326177
.1249248
3.00
0.003
1.102566
1.595138
jbackground |
1.304483
.021238
16.33
0.000
1.263507
1.346787
age |
.9722277
.018329
-1.49
0.135
.936953
1.008831
campus |
1.321602
.1377741
2.67
0.007
1.07733
1.621259
_cons |
.26918
.1348281
-2.62
0.009
.1008352
.7185767
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------logit: Predictions for lstfri
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.1400
0.8600
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1205,
0.1595]
[ 0.8405,
0.8795]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
logit: Predictions for lstfri
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.1775
0.8225
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1637,
0.1913]
[ 0.8087,
0.8363]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Synagogue membership
(running logit on estimation sample)
Survey: Logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6768
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6733)
Prob > F
=
6768
= 115808.6
=
4939
= 84965.377
=
6736
=
79.54
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
syn | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.333091
.1102283
3.48
0.001
1.133612
1.567672
jbackground |
1.250031
.0182057
15.32
0.000
1.214847
1.286234
age |
.9087649
.0148749
-5.84
0.000
.8800682
.9383972
campus |
1.41008
.1304908
3.71
0.000
1.176138
1.690555
_cons |
2.472209
1.073786
2.08
0.037
1.055129
5.792483
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------logit: Predictions for syn
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Yes|x):
Pr(y=No|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2181
0.7819
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.1940,
0.2422]
[ 0.7578,
0.8060]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
logit: Predictions for syn
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=Yes|x):
Pr(y=No|x):
x=
participant
1
0.2711
0.7289
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.2553,
0.2868]
[ 0.7132,
0.7447]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
75
76
Young Adults and Jewish Engagement
Religious service attendance
(running logit on estimation sample)
Survey: Logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
6767
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F(
4,
6732)
Prob > F
=
6767
= 115807.08
=
4938
= 84963.859
=
6735
=
64.97
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
relservbin | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------participant |
1.421419
.1104413
4.53
0.000
1.220601
1.655277
jbackground |
1.197317
.0164086
13.14
0.000
1.165579
1.229919
age |
.9700594
.0148551
-1.99
0.047
.9413714
.9996215
campus |
1.80569
.1580633
6.75
0.000
1.520964
2.143718
_cons |
.4491598
.1827607
-1.97
0.049
.202297
.9972692
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------logit: Predictions for relservbin
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
0
0.2459
0.7541
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.2214,
0.2704]
[ 0.7296,
0.7786]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
logit: Predictions for relservbin
Confidence intervals by delta method
Pr(y=1|x):
Pr(y=0|x):
x=
participant
1
0.3167
0.6833
jbackground
.0106291
95% Conf. Interval
[ 0.3002,
0.3332]
[ 0.6668,
0.6998]
age
25.603656
campus
.77171792
NEXT participation (p. 23)
Survey: Logistic regression
Number of strata
Number of PSUs
=
=
32
7188
Number of obs
Population size
Subpop. no. of obs
Subpop. size
Design df
F( 10,
7147)
Prob > F
=
7188
= 123415.08
=
4924
= 81290.654
=
7156
=
9.42
=
0.0000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Linearized
binnext | Odds Ratio
Std. Err.
t
P>|t|
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------reground |
16 |
.8122669
.1788505
-0.94
0.345
.5275258
1.250702
17 |
.9160307
.1991661
-0.40
0.687
.5981471
1.402853
18 |
1.052469
.216835
0.25
0.804
.7027661
1.576187
19 |
1.962399
.3908677
3.38
0.001
1.328059
2.899726
20 |
1.821594
.4054166
2.69
0.007
1.177538
2.817918
21 |
2.775199
.5642128
5.02
0.000
1.862992
4.134064
22 |
1.836211
.3768572
2.96
0.003
1.227992
2.745678
|
age |
1.059914
.0173505
3.55
0.000
1.026442
1.094478
female |
1.194027
.1050828
2.01
0.044
1.004823
1.418857
jbackground |
1.027851
.0166343
1.70
0.090
.9957546
1.060982
_cons |
.0241719
.0116248
-7.74
0.000
.0094163
.0620502
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University is a
multi-disciplinary research institute dedicated to the study of American Jewry and religious and
cultural identity.
The Steinhardt Social Research Institute, hosted at CMJS, is committed to the development and
application of innovative approaches to socio-demographic research for the study of Jewish,
religious, and cultural identity.
Brandeis University