2015 NASHVILLE AND
MIDDLE TENNESSEE JEWISH
COMMUNITY STUDY
OUR STORY
CONTINUES HERE.
BE A PART OF THE NEXT CHAPTER CREATING AN
EVEN BETTER BEST JEWISH NASHVILLE.
Funded by
OF NASHVILLE &
MIDDLE TENNESSEE
MATTHEW BOXER | JANET KRASNER ARONSON
MATTHEW A. BROOKNER | ASHLEY PERRY
© 2016 Brandeis University
Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies
www.brandeis.edu/cmjs
The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies (CMJS), 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 sociodemographic data on the
Jewish community.
i
Jewish Federation of Nashville and Middle Tennessee
Acknowledgments
The Jewish Federation of Nashville and Middle Tennessee would like to thank all those who
contributed their time, talent, input, insight, and expertise in order to make this study as communally
beneficial and useful as possible.
We are grateful for continued partnership of our congregations, agencies, service providers, and
social organizations that provided organizational lists and contributed questions for this study. We
know we will all continue to work together as we integrate all that this study contains and respond
creatively and collaboratively to strengthen our community.
Our Demographic Study Advisory Committee has been significantly involved from the request for
proposals to the analysis and at all points in between. Each stage of this process was improved by
their contributions.
Lori Fishel
Randy Gross
Carol Hyatt
Shaul Kelner
Amy Smith
Irwin Venick
The Federation board has provided the leadership and vision needed to undertake this study. Each
officer and board member provided thoughtful direction and wise counsel during the almost two
years of this project. We know our board members will continue to be instrumental as we come up
with innovative responses to this wealth of data.
Carol Hyatt - President
Lisa Perlen – Vice President
Steve Hirsch – Treasurer
Irwin Venick – Secretary
Andrew May – Immediate Past President
Sandy Averbuch
Dianne Berry
Didi Biesman
Daniel Biller
Robin Cohen
Michael Doochin
Lori Fishel
Robert Gordon
Aron Karabel
Rabbi Joshua Kullock
Tara Lerner
David Levy
James Mackler
Martin Ted Mayden
ii
Arthur Perlen
Manuel “Ben” Russ
David Schwartz
Michael Simon
Janet Weismark
Fred Zimmerman
At every step of the way we relied on the knowledge, skill, and expertise of our research team at the
Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and Steinhardt Social Research Institute. Led by Dr. Matt
Boxer, each member of this team worked to understand and respond to our community’s needs
while at the same time maintaining the integrity and excellence of the study. They each individually
and collectively made working together a pleasure.
Matthew Boxer
Janet Krasner Aronson
Matthew A. Brookner
Ashley Perry
The entire staff of the Jewish Federation of Nashville and Middle Tennessee contributed questions
and valuable input toward this project. Special thanks go to Andrea Crowe, Donor Database
Manager, for her diligent work updating and preparing the organizational membership lists. Lisa
Smith, Communications and Marketing Specialist, offered her creative talents toward the cover
design. Charles Bernsen, Observer Editor, has provided multiple articles and features in order to
educate the community through his clear and insightful journalism.
We are looking forward to a bright and rich future as we strengthen the Nashville and Middle
Tennessee Jewish Community.
With appreciation,
Mark S. Freedman
Executive Director
Harriet Schiftan
Director of Planning and Partnership
iii
CMJS/SSRI Acknowledgments
The Brandeis research team is grateful to the Jewish Federation and Jewish Foundation of Nashville
and Middle Tennessee for the opportunity to collaborate to develop and conduct the 2015
Community Study. The study was proposed and sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Nashville
and Middle Tennessee, whose staff, Board of Directors, and Community Study Committee provided
valuable input on the study design, questionnaire, and report. We are, in particular, especially grateful
to Executive Director Mark Freedman, Planning and Partnership2Gether Director Harriet Schiftan,
and Community Study Committee member Prof. Shaul Kelner. They helped us learn about the
community and ensured that our work would be of the highest quality and utility for the Nashville
and Middle Tennessee Jewish community. We also thank the many respondents who completed the
survey. Without their willingness to spend time answering numerous questions about their lives,
there could be no study.
We are grateful for the efforts of the Survey Research Division (SRD) of the Social Development
Research Group at the University of Washington, who served as the call center for this study.
Danielle Woodward was our initial point of contact at SRD and oversaw administration of the study.
Mary Grassley and Collene Gaolach programmed the survey instrument, and Wilson Chau provided
technical support. Special thanks to Lorelei Lin for supervising data collection efforts and to
Deborah Cohen for serving as the lead caller for the study. We would also like to thank the many
callers who collected data from respondents; the study would not have been possible without them.
We would also like to thank Prof. Leonard Saxe, Director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish
Studies and Steinhardt Social Research Institute, without whose guidance and support this project
would not have gone forward. This project also could not have been conducted without the
assistance of a large team of our students and colleagues at CMJS/SSRI. We are appreciative and
grateful for their efforts. Joel Abramson, a former Community Engagement Associate at the Jewish
Federation of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, provided us with an insider’s view of the
community. Joseph Lebedew programmed new tools to aid in the statistical analysis. Ethan
Aronson, Rebecca Delman, Alexander Dicenso, David Glass, Rebecca Hartman, Leora Kagedan,
Eitan King-Levine, Gal Kramer, Devorah Kranz, Molly Moman, Alissa Platcow, Rebecca Rose,
Gabriella Shapiro, Sophia Shoulson, and Breanna Vizlakh spent countless hours searching for
missing contact information for members of the sample. Molly, Sophia and Gal also helped prepare
mailings to contact households selected into the sample. Gal, Ethan, and Breanna also worked
tirelessly coding responses to open-ended questions in the survey. David Manchester and Rachel
Bernstein assisted in the qualitative coding, provided editorial assistance, and helped develop tables
for this report. David also cleaned mailing and membership lists to prepare the survey sample and
developed the maps. Sarah Meyer provided editorial assistance and helped with communications and
testing of the instrument.
We are also grateful to Deborah Grant for her editorial advice and feedback, and to Masha Lokshin
and Ilana Friedman for their logistical and editorial support throughout the study.
iv
v
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
About This Study .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Who is Jewish for Purposes of This Study? .............................................................................................. 7
What is a “Jewish Household”? .................................................................................................................. 8
Non-Jews in Jewish Households ................................................................................................................. 8
Undercounted Populations .......................................................................................................................... 8
How to Read This Report ............................................................................................................................ 8
“Involvement” .............................................................................................................................................10
Chapter 1. Demographics ...............................................................................................................................13
Jewish Population Estimate .......................................................................................................................13
Non-Jews in Jewish Households ...............................................................................................................14
Age and Sex Composition..........................................................................................................................15
Marital Status and Intermarriage ...............................................................................................................16
Racial and Sexual Identification ................................................................................................................17
Political Views and Identification .............................................................................................................18
Educational Attainment .............................................................................................................................18
Labor Force Participation ..........................................................................................................................19
Income and Standard of Living.................................................................................................................20
Chapter 2. Involvement in the Jewish Community ....................................................................................23
Overall Involvement ...................................................................................................................................23
Relationship between Political Orientation and Involvement ..............................................................24
Relationship between Wealth and Involvement .....................................................................................24
Chapter 3. Religious Identity and Upbringing .............................................................................................27
Jewish Identity of Adults ............................................................................................................................27
Religion and Parentage of Adults..............................................................................................................28
Religion and Parentage of Children ..........................................................................................................29
Jewish Education of Adults .......................................................................................................................30
Chapter 4. Geographic Profile .......................................................................................................................31
Jewish Neighborhoods and Distribution .................................................................................................31
Geographic Distribution by Age ...............................................................................................................33
Geographic Distribution by Household Type ........................................................................................33
Geographic Distribution by Communal Involvement ..........................................................................34
Place of Origin .............................................................................................................................................34
vi
Length of Residence ...................................................................................................................................35
Reasons for Moving to the Area ...............................................................................................................35
Plans to Move Away ...................................................................................................................................35
Chapter 5. Jewish Social and Communal Ties .............................................................................................37
Meaning of Judaism ....................................................................................................................................37
Jewish Friendship Networks ......................................................................................................................38
Connection to Jewish Communities .........................................................................................................39
Alternative Practices....................................................................................................................................41
Chapter 6. Synagogue Membership and Ritual Life ...................................................................................43
Synagogue Membership..............................................................................................................................43
Synagogue Programs ...................................................................................................................................43
Attendance at Religious Services...............................................................................................................44
Ritual Practice ..............................................................................................................................................45
Chapter 7. Jewish Education of Children.....................................................................................................47
Preschool Children ......................................................................................................................................47
PJ Library ......................................................................................................................................................48
Formal Jewish Education ...........................................................................................................................48
Informal Jewish Education ........................................................................................................................50
B’nai Mitzvah ...............................................................................................................................................52
Chapter 8. Organizations and Program Participation ................................................................................53
Jewish Organizations ..................................................................................................................................53
Jewish Program Participation ....................................................................................................................54
Types of Programs Attended.....................................................................................................................54
Sources of Information ..............................................................................................................................55
Community Strengths .................................................................................................................................56
Chapter 9. Volunteering and Philanthropy ..................................................................................................57
Volunteering .................................................................................................................................................57
Volunteer Causes .........................................................................................................................................59
Reasons for Not Volunteering ..................................................................................................................59
Charitable Donations ..................................................................................................................................60
Reasons for Donating .................................................................................................................................61
Bequests ........................................................................................................................................................62
Non-Donors.................................................................................................................................................62
Reasons for Not Donating to Jewish Organizations .............................................................................63
Chapter 10. Israel .............................................................................................................................................65
vii
Travel to Israel .............................................................................................................................................65
Connections to Israel ..................................................................................................................................65
Knowledge about Israel ..............................................................................................................................66
Political Views about Israel ........................................................................................................................67
Community Attention to Israel .................................................................................................................69
Chapter 11. Relationships with the Broader Community ..........................................................................71
Antisemitism ................................................................................................................................................71
Separation of Church and State.................................................................................................................73
Improved Relationships with Non-Jews ..................................................................................................73
Chapter 12. Young Adults ..............................................................................................................................75
Age and Gender...........................................................................................................................................75
Schooling and Employment ......................................................................................................................75
Living Situation ............................................................................................................................................76
Religious Background .................................................................................................................................76
Friendships, Dating, and Marriage ............................................................................................................77
Program Participation .................................................................................................................................78
Volunteering and Philanthropy .................................................................................................................78
Connections and Attitudes.........................................................................................................................79
Chapter 13. Health and Social Welfare .........................................................................................................81
Health Status, Counseling, and Need for Assistance .............................................................................81
Preferences for Senior Housing and Social Services ..............................................................................81
Saving for College and Retirement ...........................................................................................................82
Wealth and Poverty .....................................................................................................................................82
Economic Insecurity ...................................................................................................................................83
Chapter 14. In the Words of Community Members ..................................................................................85
Cohesiveness and Collaboration ...............................................................................................................85
Warm and Caring ........................................................................................................................................86
Not Feeling Welcomed...............................................................................................................................86
Concerns for Social Justice ........................................................................................................................87
Community Needs ......................................................................................................................................87
Looking Toward the Future ...........................................................................................................................89
Notes..................................................................................................................................................................93
viii
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1. Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish Population Estimates, 1982-2015 .......................14
Figure 1.2. Age-Sex Distribution of All People Living in Jewish Households in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee (n=685) ..........................................................................................................................................16
Figure 1.3. Age-Sex Distribution of Jewish Individuals in Nashville and Middle Tennessee ..............16
Figure 1.4. Household Involvement by Marriage Type* (n=873) ............................................................17
Figure 1.5. Educational Attainment of Jewish Adults in Greater Nashville (n=941, Jewish
respondents only) .............................................................................................................................................19
Figure 1.6. Occupations (n=639)...................................................................................................................20
Figure 1.7. Self-Reported Standard of Living (n=900)...............................................................................20
Figure 1.8. Household Income (n=892) .......................................................................................................21
Figure 2.1. Indexed Level of Involvement in Jewish Communal Life (n=852) .....................................23
Figure 2.2. Levels of Involvement by Political Orientation (n=841, Jewish respondents only) ..........24
Figure 2.3. Levels of Involvement by Standard of Living* (n=603) ........................................................25
Figure 3.1. Parental Marriage of Children ....................................................................................................29
Figure 3.2. Religion in which Children are being Raised by Parental Marriage Type* (n=289) ..........29
Figure 3.3. Hebrew Literacy by Communal Involvement* (n=871, Jewish respondents only) ...........30
Figure 4.1. Dot Density Map of Jewish Households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee ...................32
Figure 5.1. Perceptions of Judaism................................................................................................................37
Figure 5.2. Perceptions of Judaism as a Religion by Communal Involvement* (n=869, Jewish
respondents only) .............................................................................................................................................38
Figure 5.3. Proportion of Jewish Friends by Communal Involvement* (n=873, Jewish respondents
only) ...................................................................................................................................................................39
Figure 5.4. Connection to Jewish Life (Jewish respondents only, n=939) ..............................................40
Figure 5.5. Connection to Global Jewish Community by Communal Involvement* (Jewish
respondents only, n=848) ...............................................................................................................................40
Figure 5.6. Connection to Local Jewish Community* (Jewish respondents only, n=845) ...................41
Figure 6.1. Shabbat and Kashrut Observance .............................................................................................45
Figure 8.1. Level of Activity by Organization Type (Jewish respondents only) .....................................53
Figure 9.1. Types of Organizations Served (n=536, Jewish respondents only) ......................................57
Figure 9.2. Donations by Organization Type and Communal Involvement* (n= 831, Jewish
respondents only) .............................................................................................................................................60
Figure 11.1. Concern about Antisemitism (Jewish respondents only) .....................................................72
Figure 12.1. Age of Jewish Young Adults (n=178).....................................................................................75
Figure 12.2. Educational Attainment of Jewish Young Adults (n=128) .................................................76
Figure 12.3. Jewish Parentage of Jewish Adults* (n=1,005) ......................................................................76
ix
Figure 12.4. Importance of Jewish Dating, Marriage, and Children (n=90) ...........................................77
Figure 12.5. Connections with Israel and the Jewish Community (n=164) ............................................79
Table of Tables
Table 1.1. Intermarriage Rate for Married Respondents by Age ..............................................................17
Table 1.2. Racial Identification of Respondents..........................................................................................18
Table 3.1. Jewish Identification of Adults ....................................................................................................28
Table 3.2. Denomination of Jewish Adults ..................................................................................................28
Table 3.3. Jewish Parentage of Jewish Adults by Age* ..............................................................................28
Table 4.1: Residence of Jewish Adults by Age ............................................................................................33
Table 4.2: Household Types by Location ....................................................................................................33
Table 4.3: Communal Involvement of Jewish Households by Residence*.............................................34
Table 4.4: Where Jewish Adults Were Born and Raised ............................................................................34
Table 4.5: Length of Residence......................................................................................................................35
Table 4.6: Reasons for Moving to Nashville and Middle Tennessee .......................................................35
Table 4.7. Reasons for Moving Away ...........................................................................................................36
Table 6.1. Synagogue Program Attendance .................................................................................................44
Table 6.2. Frequency of Attending Services by Involvement*..................................................................44
Table 7.1. Proportion of Age-Eligible Jewish Children in Preschool ......................................................47
Table 7.2. Reasons for Choosing a Preschool .............................................................................................48
Table 7.3. Proportion of Age-Eligible Jewish Children in Formal Jewish Education ...........................49
Table 7.4. Reasons for Choosing a Jewish Part-Time School ...................................................................49
Table 7.5. Reasons for Not Enrolling Children in Any Formal Jewish Education................................50
Table 7.6. Proportion of Age-Eligible Jewish Children Enrolled in Informal Jewish Education in
Past Year ...........................................................................................................................................................50
Table 7.7. Reasons for Choosing a Jewish Camp (Somewhat or Very Important) ................................51
Table 7.8. Reasons for Not Enrolling Children in Jewish Camp..............................................................51
Table 7.9. Proportion of Age-Eligible Children who Had a Bar or Bat Mitzvah Ceremony ...............52
Table 8.1. Household Frequency of Attending Jewish and Non-Jewish Programs...............................54
Table 8.2. Attendance at Special Programs ..................................................................................................54
Table 8.3. Attendance by Program Type and Sponsorship .......................................................................55
Table 8.4. Sources of Information about Jewish Programs .......................................................................55
Table 9.1. Hours Volunteered in the Past Month .......................................................................................57
Table 9.2. Volunteer Roles by Organization Type ......................................................................................58
Table 9.3. Volunteer Roles by Involvement and Organization Type ......................................................58
x
Table 9.4. Volunteer Causes ...........................................................................................................................59
Table 9.5. Reasons for Not Volunteering ....................................................................................................59
Table 9.6. Amount Donated in Past Year by Communal Involvement* ................................................60
Table 9.7. Donations to Jewish Organizations by Communal Involvement (Jewish respondents only)
............................................................................................................................................................................61
Table 9.8. Reasons for Donating ...................................................................................................................61
Table 9.9. Effect of Jewish Sponsorship of Likelihood to Donate to Organizations by Communal
Involvement* ....................................................................................................................................................62
Table 9.10. Reasons for Not Donating to Any Organization ...................................................................63
Table 9.11. Reasons for Not Donating to JFNMT ....................................................................................63
Table 10.1. Times Visited Israel by Communal Involvement* .................................................................65
Table 10.2. Connection to Israel by Communal Involvement* ................................................................66
Table 10.3. Friends and Family in Israel* .....................................................................................................66
Table 10.4. Knowledge about Nashville’s Connections to Israel .............................................................67
Table 10.5. Dismantling Israeli Settlements in the West Bank .................................................................67
Table 10.6. Status of Jerusalem by Involvement* .......................................................................................68
Table 10.7. Establishment of a Palestinian State by Involvement ............................................................68
Table 11.1. Experience with Antisemitism in Past Year by Communal Involvement ..........................72
Table 12.1. Denomination of Jewish Young Adults ...................................................................................77
Table 12.2. Engagement with Local Jewish Organizations .......................................................................78
Table 13.1. Preference for Jewish or Non-Jewish Social Service Providers*..........................................82
Table 13.2. Confidence about Savings ..........................................................................................................82
Table 13.3. Recipients of Public Benefits .....................................................................................................83
Table 13.4. Basic Needs Ever Unmet in Past Year.....................................................................................84
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Nashville and Middle Tennessee are home to a slowly but steadily growing community of Jews. At
its core, the Jewish community is comprised of a small, tight-knit group of highly involved
individuals who participate in many aspects of Jewish life. These individuals tend to be older and
more financially secure. On the outskirts of the community are those who do not engage with the
Jewish community. Somewhere in between is the majority of the community: somewhat, but not
deeply, involved in Jewish communal and religious life.
The vast majority of Jews in Nashville and Middle Tennessee define themselves as Jewish by
religion, yet the community consists of a mix of those who see their Jewishness in religious, cultural,
and ethnic terms. The Jewish community is somewhat older than the national average, derived from
the Pew Research Center’s 2013 study of the American Jewish population. Yet there is a healthy
population of young adults and children. Most preschool-aged children from Jewish households are
enrolled in non-Jewish day care or preschool programs. If the Nashville and Middle Tennessee
Jewish community can identify appropriate sites to establish such programs under its own auspices,
doing so may provide additional opportunities to engage young Jewish families.
A majority of households include married couples. The rate of intermarriage in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee is slightly higher than the national average, and intermarried families are somewhat less
involved in Jewish life than inmarried ones. Although a plurality of individuals identify as Reform,
Nashville and Middle Tennessee is home to a diverse denominational population. Community
members appreciate that leaders and clergy from multiple congregations work together to provide a
sense of Jewish unity throughout the community, regardless of denomination.
The community also includes many deeply rooted Jewish families who have been in the area for
many years, if not generations. These long-term residents tend to be more involved in the
community and have strong ties to the various Jewish organizations and congregations. One
unintended consequence of such tight and long-standing connections, however, is that newcomers
and less engaged individuals can find it difficult to integrate, make connections, and become
involved in institutions. Infrequent turnover of leadership can also result in resistance to institutional
change.
Young adults, although less likely to be engaged than other members, express an overwhelming
desire to become more involved in local Jewish life. Community members who live farther away
from the center of Jewish life are also less likely to be engaged, though this may change if programs
were offered in more convenient locations.
There are many areas of opportunity for the leadership of Nashville and Middle Tennessee to
strengthen and promote an inclusive and thriving community. In addition to engaging young people
and geographically remote households, other opportunities lie in welcoming families of interfaith
relationships and making them feel more included in the Jewish community. Similarly, reaching out
to newcomers and giving them a sense of belonging in the community may help engage this portion
of the population. Other segments that will need special attention in the coming years are the
economically vulnerable, including the aging populations that are not financially secure going into
their retirement, and those that are already having difficulties providing for themselves and their
families.
1
2
Executive Summary
Key findings of the study include:
Community Size
 There are approximately 11,000 people currently living in approximately 4,700 Jewish
households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee, including 6,500 Jewish adults and 1,500
Jewish children as well as 2,200 non-Jewish adults and 800 non-Jewish children.
 The Jewish population in Nashville and Middle Tennessee is transient but stable;
approximately the same number of residents is moving into the area as is moving away each
year.
Demographics
 The median age of all individuals living in Jewish households in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee is 48 years; among Jews alone, the median age is 51. The median age of Jewish
adults is 57, somewhat older than the national median age of 50 reported by the Pew study.
 Children aged 17 or younger comprise about one-fifth of the population (21% of all people;
19% of Jewish individuals)
 Over 90% of Jewish adults identify as Jewish by religion.
 Overall, three-fifths (60%) of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee include
a married couple. Over half of these marriages (56%) are intermarriages, higher than the
national average of 44%.
 Eighty-six percent of Jewish adults have received at least a bachelor’s degree, and 54% have
received an advanced degree.
 Thirty-one percent of Jewish households include at least one person who is a Vanderbilt
University student, alumnus/alumna, or employee.
Involvement in the Community
 Over 80% of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee have at least some
involvement in Jewish communal life, and nearly half (47%) are moderately or highly
engaged.
 Higher proportions of individuals whose level of involvement in Jewish communal life is low
or moderate identify as politically conservative compared to those who are highly involved
or not formally involved.
Religious Identification
 Among Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish adults, about three-quarters were raised
Jewish by two Jewish parents. Just over half (54%) of Jewish children are currently being
raised by two Jewish parents.
 Among children of intermarried parents, 40% are being raised exclusively Jewish, either by
religion or by culture. The largest share (47%), however, are being raised with no religion or
by parents who have not yet decided on the religion of the children. Only 13% of children of
intermarriage are being raised as two religions or not as Jews.
 Nearly half of the Jewish adults in the Nashville and Middle Tennessee area (45%) are
Reform. About one-quarter (24%) are Conservative, and another quarter (24%) are secular
or cultural Jews, or “just Jewish.” Six percent identify as Orthodox.
Executive Summary
Geographic Profile
 Approximately 74% of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee live in
Davidson County, another 16% are in Williamson County, and the remainder are in the
surrounding area.
 In Williamson County, 49% of Jewish households have children, compared to 24% in
Davidson County and 21% in the rest of the region.
 Highly involved Jewish adults are most likely to live in Davidson County; almost 60% of
Jewish individuals in Davidson County are moderately or highly involved compared to just
over 40% in Williamson County and 20% in the rest of Nashville and Middle Tennessee.
Jewish Social and Community Ties
 Many members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community consider it to be
warm and welcoming, including to families comprised of interfaith or same-sex couples.
 Almost all (89%) Jewish adults report that at least some of their friends are Jewish.
Synagogues and Ritual Life
 Over three-quarters (82%) of households have been to one or more programs organized by
a local synagogue in the past year.
 Members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community frequently attend
programs organized by synagogues to which they do not belong. For each congregation,
between one-quarter (27%) and two-thirds (64%) of program attendees were not members
of that synagogue, and about one-quarter of synagogue-based program attendees (28%) did
not belong to any local synagogue.
 Less than half (42%) of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee belong to at
least one local synagogue, which is comparable to the national rate of synagogue affiliation
of 39%. A small proportion (5%) of households belong to more than synagogue.
 Almost half (48%) of those living in the area for more than ten years belong to a local
synagogue, compared to 31% of recent residents. Nearly all (90%) of the highly involved
belong to at least one local synagogue, and nearly one-quarter belong to multiple synagogues.
 Hanukkah candles are lit in 86% of households and 81% of households participate in a
Passover seder. Half (49%) light Shabbat candles at least sometimes, and 16% usually or
always. By comparison, the 2013 Pew study reported that only about 70% of Jews nationally
attended a seder in the previous year and 23% usually or always lit Shabbat candles.
Jewish Education
 Over half (55%) of preschool-aged Jewish children are enrolled in non-Jewish preschools,
compared to 31% in Jewish preschools. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of children of intermarried
parents attend non-Jewish preschools, and 22% attend Jewish preschools.
 The fit of the program to the child’s needs and the program’s quality were the most
important considerations for choosing a preschool or formal childcare program.
 Nearly half (46%) of age-eligible families participate in the PJ Library program.
 About 10% of age-eligible Jewish children are enrolled in the Akiva School, and 55% are
enrolled in a part-time school.
3
4
Executive Summary


Nearly half (43%) of part-time school parents considered other schools before selecting the
one in which they ultimately enrolled their children.
Among all girls aged 12 and older or boys aged 13 and older, just over half (53%) have
celebrated, or intend to celebrate, a bar or bat mitzvah.
Organizations and Program Participation
 About one-quarter (23%) of Jewish households say they are members of the Gordon Jewish
Community Center, but among these, 13% do not pay dues. Another quarter (28%) report
that they are former members.
 Synagogues are the primary institutions through which the largest share of community
members participate in the organized Jewish community.
 Community members learn about programs primarily from the Jewish Observer (66%) and
from family and friends (63%).
 More than half of Jewish adults attended the Chanukah Festival (56%) and the Nashville
Jewish Film Festival (55%).
 Members appreciate how synagogues, the GJCC, the Federation, and other local
organizations collaborate.
Volunteering and Philanthropy
 Half of Jewish adults in the community volunteered for any organization in the month
before completing the survey, including 61% of synagogue members and 62% of Vanderbiltaffiliated adults.
 Just over one-quarter of Jewish adults (28%) volunteered for Jewish organizations in the
month prior to completing the survey, including 84% of adults who are highly involved in
the Jewish community, 47% of synagogue members, and 38% of Vanderbilt-affiliated adults.
 Almost all (95%) Jewish adults made a charitable donation other than membership dues to
any charity in the past year; 72% donated to at least one Jewish organization.
 About one-third of non-donors said they did not find a cause that was right for them, and
about one-third said they made no donation because no one asked.
Israel
 Half (51%) of Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish community members have been to
Israel, including 21% who have visited more than once; by contrast, 43% of all American
Jews have been to Israel, including 23% who have visited more than once.
 Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish community feels more strongly connected to Israel
than the national population. In the Pew study, the proportion who said they were “very
much” connected to Israel was 32%; in Nashville and Middle Tennessee, the proportion is
42%.
 Half of Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish community seek news about Israel at least
weekly; 22% seek news about Israel at least daily.
 Almost half (44%) of Jewish adults are aware that Nashville has a community shlicha, or
Israeli emissary.
 One-third (32%) of Jewish adults believe Nashville has a JAFI Partnership Region in Israel.
Approximately 19% correctly identified this area as Hadera-Eiron.
Executive Summary
Relationships with the Broader Community
 A small proportion of adult Jews (15%) report personally experiencing antisemitism in the
past year.
 A particular concern of local community members was the separation of church and state,
most notably in the public school system.
Young Adults
 Young adults (those aged 18-39 without children) are more likely to identify as secular or
culturally Jewish, or “just Jewish” than the overall population (31% vs. 24%).
 Younger adults are split on the community’s efforts to reach out to their demographic. Some
feel more work is needed, while others believe that the offered programs, particularly
NowGen, are strengths of the community.
 Nearly all (94%) expressed interest in greater involvement in the community.
 Jewish young adults feel more connected to the worldwide Jewish community (63%
“somewhat” or “very much”) than they do the local Jewish community (33%).
Health and Social Welfare
 Two-thirds (66%) of adults would be more inclined to use social services offered by a Jewish
organization. Highly affiliated Jewish adults express stronger preference (78%) for Jewish
providers of social services than do unaffiliated adults (40%).
 A not insignificant percentage of households, 11%, have had to cut back on basic needs in
the past year—including skipping or cutting the size of meals, not getting a prescription
filled for medication, or missing at least one rent or mortgage payment— as a result of
financial circumstances. The Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee may be
affluent as a whole, but a substantial proportion of the community is economically
vulnerable and would benefit from additional assistance.
In the Words of Community Members
 Those who live farther from Nashville, newcomers, and those who are less financially secure
appear to have the most trouble integrating into the mainstream of the community.
 Community members appreciate that all of the local synagogues work together and
collaborate in programming and in welcoming nonmembers.
5
6
Executive Summary
Introduction
Introduction
The central goals of the present study of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community are
to help Jewish agencies in Nashville and Middle Tennessee learn about the size and demographic
characteristics of their community; interest in and utilization of programs and services; synagogue
and other organizational affiliations; and a wide array of additional topics that inform communal
planning and resource allocation. The data from this study, provided by respondents from 1,015
Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee who completed a survey, will assist local
Jewish organizations to make informed decisions about strategic priorities, the effectiveness of
communal initiatives, and the future direction of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish
community. With the data in hand, Jewish organizations will be better equipped to understand the
community’s needs and challenges and plan effectively for the next decade.
About This Study
This study follows a long-standing tradition of efforts to describe and understand the Nashville and
Middle Tennessee Jewish community. Several previous population studies have been conducted; full
reports are available for studies conducted in 1982, 1988, 1993, and 2002. The 2015 study was
initiated and funded by the Jewish Federation of Nashville and Middle Tennessee (JFNMT). Several
goals were articulated for the study:
-
To estimate the size and geographic distribution of the Jewish community
To examine community members’ involvement in the organized Jewish community
To assess community members’ current demographic, social, and economic characteristics
JFNMT contracted with the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies (CMJS)/Steinhardt Social
Research Institute (SSRI) at Brandeis University to conduct the study. Informed by previous
research and in consultation with the Federation and its community study technical committee,
CMJS/SSRI developed a research strategy and survey instrument to address the community’s needs.
In consultation with the Federation, the geographic focus of this study included the Jewish
population of Cheatham, Davidson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson
Counties. Although our focus was limited to this seven-county area, any respondent who claimed
membership in the Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee was included in the study.
Who is Jewish for Purposes of This Study?
Defining who is or is not Jewish is one challenge in producing a Jewish population estimate for any
community. Those who say that Judaism is their religion comprise just one segment of the Jewish
people. As the 2013 Pew study of the American Jewish population1 illustrated, Judaism is recognized
not only as a religion, but also as an ethnicity. Although most Jews in the United States—and in
Nashville and Middle Tennessee—identify as Jews by religion (JBR), many others claim a Jewish
identity not through religion (JNR) but through ancestry, ethnicity, or culture. Following Pew, we
treat as Jews both those who identify as Jews by religion and those who identify as Jews not by
religion.2 We also include as Jews those who say they are both Jewish and something else. These
individuals, frequently the adult children of intermarried parents, think of themselves as Jews and are
7
8
Introduction
considered Jewish by the organized Jewish community in Nashville and Middle Tennessee. Although
the Pew study did not count such people, this study includes them in the Jewish population estimate.
Similarly, children might be identified as Jewish if they are being raised exclusively Jewish, Jewish
and another religion, or in no particular faith by Jewish parents. Accordingly, the total population
estimate is derived from the sum of the JBR, JNR, and mixed Jewish adult population, plus the total
number of children being raised Jewish in any way or in no particular religion by JBR, JNR, or mixed
Jewish parents. Children whose parents have not yet decided how to raise them are also included in
the population estimate.
What is a “Jewish Household”?
For the purposes of this study, a Jewish household was defined as any household in which at least
one adult (aged 18 or older) who usually resides in the household considers him- or herself to be
Jewish. One could consider one’s self Jewish by religion or by some other means (e.g., culturally,
ethnically, by descent, etc.). Respondents who indicated there were no Jewish adults in the
household were screened out of the survey.
Non-Jews in Jewish Households
Not everyone who lives in a Jewish household was considered Jewish. Any respondent who selfidentified as a Jew and any adults identified by respondents as Jews were counted, while respondents
who did not identify as Jewish in any way and adults identified by respondents as non-Jews were not
counted. If there were any children in the household, the respondent was asked if they were being
raised exclusively as Jews, Jewish and something else, exclusively as non-Jews, in no religion, or if
the parents had yet to decide. Children who were identified as Jewish or Jewish and something else,
as well as children whose parents were raising them in no religion or who had not decided how to
raise them, were counted as Jewish for the purposes of this study.
Undercounted Populations
The goal of any community study is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the Jewish
population. Nevertheless, some groups are likely to be undercounted and/or underrepresented. In
particular, residents of hospitals, nursing homes, dormitories on college campuses, or other
institutional settings, as well as adults who do not associate in any way with any Jewish organization
in Nashville and Middle Tennessee are less likely to have been identified and contacted to complete
the survey. We do not believe, however, that these undercounts introduce significant bias into the
reported estimates. To the extent that these segments of the population are underrepresented, they
are likely to resemble most closely those individuals who are least involved in the organized Jewish
community.
How to Read This Report
Household surveys are designed to represent the views of an entire community by interviewing a
randomly selected sample of households that stands in for segments of the community. In order to
extrapolate survey data to the population as a whole, the data are adjusted using a technique called
“weighting.” This technique adjusts each respondent’s answers for the probability of having been
Introduction
selected at random into the survey, the probability of participating in the survey given selection, and
known features of the population, yielding what is known as “weighted” data. Each individual
response is weighted to represent a proportion of the overall population bearing certain
characteristics. The weighted response thus stands in for the segment of the population and not only
the household from which it was collected. (See Appendix A for more detail.) Unless otherwise
specified, this report presents weighted survey data in the form of percentages or proportions.
Accordingly, these data should be read not as the percentage or proportion of respondents who
answered each question in a given way, but as the percentage or proportion of the population that it
is estimated would answer each question in that way had the entire population been surveyed.
In any report about a survey, no estimate should be considered an exact measurement. The reported
estimate for any value, known as a “point estimate,” is the most likely value for the variable in
question for the entire population given available data, but it is possible that the true value is slightly
lower or slightly higher. Because estimates are derived from data collected from a representative
sample of the population, there is a degree of uncertainty. The amount of uncertainty depends on
many factors, the most important of which is the number of survey respondents who provided the
data from which an estimate is derived. The uncertainty is quantified as a set of values that range
from some percentage below the reported estimate to a similar percentage above it. This range is
known as a “confidence interval.” By convention, the confidence interval is calculated to reflect 95%
certainty that the true value for the population falls within the range defined by the confidence
interval. (See Appendix A for details about the magnitude of the confidence intervals around
estimates in this study.)
When size estimates of subpopulations (e.g., synagogue members, intermarried families, families
with children) are provided, they are calculated as the weighted number of households or individuals
for which the respondents provided sufficient information to classify them as members of the
subgroup. When data are missing (e.g., synagogue membership, age, number of children), those
respondents are counted as if they are not part of the subgroups for purposes of estimation. For this
reason, all subpopulation estimates may undercount information on those least likely to complete
the survey or to answer particular questions. Missing information cannot reliably be imputed in
many such cases because the other information that could serve as a basis to impute data is also
missing. In all such cases, the proportion used to estimate a subpopulation size is reported in the
text and the proportion of actual responses is provided in a footnote.
Tables and figures throughout the report refer to the number of respondents who answered the
relevant question (n=#). Where comparisons are made between subgroupings within the
population, statistically significant differences are noted with an asterisk (*) next to the title or
relevant variable label, indicating that those differences are likely to reflect actual differences
between groups rather than differences observed by random chance. When an observed difference
between groups is statistically significant, it is unlikely that the distribution of the variable in question
between the groups happened by chance. Following the standard practice of social science research,
this report relies on a standard of 5% or less chance of error (i.e., p<.05), which means we can be
95% confident that findings of differences between subgroups for a particular variable are not the
product of chance but rather a result of actual differences between the subgroups.
Some tables and figures that present proportions do not add up to 100%. In some cases, this is a
result of respondents having the option to select more than one response to a question; in such
cases, the text of the report will indicate that multiple responses were possible. In most cases,
9
10
Introduction
however, the appearance that proportional estimates do not add up to 100% is a result of rounding.
All proportional estimates are rounded to the nearest whole number.
The quantitative analysis in this report is supplemented and enriched by summaries of free-text
comments provided by respondents to open-ended questions in the survey. These comments are
not weighted to represent the full population. Instead, they are categorized and the approximate
number of respondents who gave each response is reported (n=#). Some quotes from open-ended
responses are included throughout the report. Quotes were chosen based on how well they
represented sentiments expressed by a minimum of nine other community members, though
sentiments expressed by fewer respondents are paraphrased in some places. Some responses were
edited for clarity or to protect respondents’ privacy; otherwise they are presented verbatim in order
to capture the thoughts and feelings of community members as they expressed them.
“Involvement”
Much of this report is framed by an “involvement” variable, which divides Jewish households in
Nashville and Middle Tennessee into four categories based on their level of involvement in the
Jewish community across three key dimensions: organizational involvement, program attendance,
and altruistic behavior.
-
-
-
Respondents were asked to describe the degree to which they were involved in any
synagogue, JFNMT or its Community Relations Committee (CRC), any Jewish school or
camp, any Israel-related organization, and any other membership-based Jewish organization.
Possible responses were “not at all,” “a little,” “somewhat,” and “very much,” coded with
numeric values of 1, 2, 3, and 4. For each respondent who provided sufficient data, the
average of the values for synagogue involvement, JFNMT/CRC involvement, and the
highest of the remaining items were computed. Scores below 2 were coded as “low”
organizational involvement, scores of at least 2 but less than 3 were coded as “moderate”
organizational involvement, and scores of at least 3 were coded as “high” organizational
involvement.
Respondents were asked how frequently they attended programs in the Jewish community in
the past year. Those who said they attended either no programs or one or two programs
were coded as having “low” program involvement, those who attended every few months or
about once a month were coded as having “moderate” program involvement, and those who
said they attended two or three times a month or more were coded as having “high”
program involvement.
Respondents were asked if they had volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past month
and if they made any charitable donations (other than membership dues) to Jewish
organizations in the past year. Those who said they neither volunteered for nor donated to
Jewish organizations were coded as having “low” altruistic involvement, those who did one
or the other were coded as having “moderate” altruistic involvement, and those who did
both were coded as having “high” altruistic involvement.
An index was constructed from these three forms of involvement in the Jewish community. For
each form of involvement, respondents who scored “low” were given one point, those who scored
“moderate” were given two points, and those who scored “high” were given three points. When
scores across each form of involvement were added up, respondents could have scores between
Introduction
three and nine points. Respondents with an index score of 3 were coded as having no formal
involvement in the organized Jewish community. Scores of 4 were coded as having low formal
involvement in the organized Jewish community; scores of 5 and 6 were coded as moderate
involvement; and scores of 7, 8, and 9 were coded as high involvement.
These categories are used throughout the report to help identify key differences between households
that are deeply engaged in Jewish communal life, those who eschew traditional communal
involvement, and those who fall somewhere in the middle.
11
12
Introduction
Chapter 1: Demographics
Chapter 1. Demographics
Jewish Population Estimate
The overall estimate of the Jewish population
of Nashville and Middle Tennessee can be
measured as the number of households that
identify as Jewish in any way or the number of
people living in those households who are
Jewish. It is estimated that as of 2015, there are
approximately 8,000 Jews living in Nashville
and Middle Tennessee, including 6,500 adults
and 1,500 children.
Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish
Community Population Estimates, 2015
Adults
Jewish
Non-Jewish
Children
Jewish
Non-Jewish
Total people living in
Jewish households
Total Jews
Total households
8,700
6,500
2,200
2,300
1,500
800
11,000
8,000
The size of the community is seen as a strength
4,700
for many of its members (n=59). For those
who come from a place with no Jews,
Nashville is a “large and diverse” community
that is able to support “multiple congregations and diversity of views.” Those who hail from larger
cities feel that the small size helps people to become connected.3 One wrote, “We’re bonded
because we are still such a minority in the area. [I have] never been more Jewish until I moved to
Nashville.” Another commented that “It isn’t easy to be Jewish in Tennessee, so those that are
Jewish have determination.” One member described the community as follows:
Even though the Jewish community is small in numbers it is a very active and connected community in
Nashville life as a whole. Nashville may be the ‘buckle of the bible belt,’ but I have found the people very
open to Jewish people and inclusive. Most of the Jews in Nashville are affiliated with a Temple and are very
committed to Judaism as opposed to Los Angeles where there are lots of Jews but few are affiliated.
Figure 1.1 illustrates the growth of the Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee
over the past 33 years. The data in the figure are based on information gathered from the
American Jewish Year Book and previous community studies. Population estimates are shown for
years in which studies were conducted. Although a community study was conducted in 1993, a
population estimate was not offered at that time. The 2002 population study estimate and the
2010 estimate from the American Jewish Year Book have been adjusted to reflect what are believed
to be more accurate assessments of the size of the local Jewish community.
13
14
Chapter 1: Demographics
Figure 1.1. Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish Population Estimates, 1982-2015
9,000
8,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
4,983
5,490
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1982
1988
1992
1997
2002
2010
2015
The 2002 study reported an estimate of 7,826 Jewish individuals living in 4,022 households. On the
surface, these figures make it appear that the number of households has grown substantially in the
past 13 years, while the population itself has remained stagnant. In fact, however, we suspect that
the population has grown significantly. As explained in the “How to Read This Report” section, all
estimates reported in community studies exist within confidence intervals. The confidence intervals
reported from the 2002 study suggest that the number of Jews may have been as low as 4,809 or as
high as 12,589, and the number of Jewish households may have been as low as 2,565 or as high as
5,462. Based on other estimates reported from the 2002 study, most notably synagogue membership,
which we were able to compare with archival records of the number of household units that were
members of each of the local synagogues in 2002, we believe the reported estimates in 2002 were
high—though within the reported confidence intervals. Our projection as to the true population
estimate for 2002 is between 6,500 and 7,000 Jews living in between 3,300 and 3,600 households.
Accordingly, we believe the Jewish population of Nashville and Middle Tennessee has grown since
2002 by between about 14% and 23%.
Non-Jews in Jewish Households
Not everyone living in a Jewish household is Jewish. Largely due to the prevalence of intermarriage4
among many members of the Jewish community (see below), many Jews have non-Jewish family
members. An additional 2,200 non-Jewish adults and 800 non-Jewish children live in Jewish
households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee. These 3,000 individuals bring the total population of
people living in Jewish households in the region to approximately 11,000 people, including 8,700
adults and 2,300 children.
Chapter 1: Demographics
Jewish adults are classified as either Jewish by religion (JBR; they respond that they are “Jewish”
when asked about their religious identity) or Jewish by means other than religion (JNR; they
consider themselves to be Jewish through their ethnic or cultural background rather than their
religious identity, or they consider themselves to be Jewish and another religion). Non-Jewish adults
either claimed not to be Jewish in any way; said they had Jewish background (one or more of their
parents are/were Jewish) but did not identify as Jewish in any way; or said they were Jewish but were
not born to Jewish parents, were not raised Jewish, and did not convert. Over 90% of Jewish adults
in the sample identified as Jewish by religion.
Age and Sex Composition
The population pyramids displayed in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 suggest a Jewish population that largely
follows population trends for the United States as a whole,5 with large cohorts of Baby Boomers
(born 1946-1964; aged 51-69 in 2015), smaller cohorts from Generation X (born 1965-1980; aged
35-50 in 2015), and renewed growth from Millennials (born 1981-2000). Overall, the non-Jews living
in Jewish households tend to be slightly younger than the Jews. The median age of all people—
Jewish and non-Jewish, adults and children—living in Jewish households in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee is 48 years; for Jews alone, the median age is 51. The median age of all adults in the
Jewish community is 54 years; for Jewish adults only, the median age is 57, somewhat older than the
national median age of 50 reported by the Pew study.6
Children aged 17 or younger comprise about one-fifth of the population (21% of all people; 19% of
Jewish individuals), a slightly smaller share of the population than those aged 65 or older (21% of all
people; 24% of Jewish individuals). By comparison, for the seven-county study area as a whole, 22%
of white individuals7 are children aged 17 or younger, compared with 13% of white individuals aged
65 or older.
About one-quarter (27%) of households currently include children aged 17 or younger, another
quarter (26%) consist entirely of adults aged 65 or older, and another 9% are made up entirely of
young adults between the ages of 18 and 34.
Overall, the age-sex pyramids suggest that the rate of natural increase8 is such that the Jewish
community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee can expect to grow at a slow pace or remain about
the same size in the coming years. However, the size of the Jewish community is likely tied to
prevailing regional economic conditions. If the economy is strong, the community will grow more; if
it is weak, the community will likely shrink.
The overall gender composition of the community is about 52% female and 48% male. A small
number of individuals’ genders were identified as something besides male or female.
15
16
Chapter 1: Demographics
Figure 1.2. Age-Sex Distribution of All People Living in Jewish Households in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee (n=685)
85+
75 to 84
65 to 74
55 to 64
45 to 54
35 to 44
25 to 34
18 to 24
10 to 17
0 to 9
1%
1%
2%
3%
7%
7%
8%
9%
7%
7%
5%
5%
4%
7%
3%
3%
5%
6%
5%
5%
Male
Female
Figure 1.3. Age-Sex Distribution of Jewish Individuals in Nashville and Middle Tennessee
85+
2%
75 to 84
3%
65 to 74
55 to 64
45 to 54
1%
3%
8%
7%
10%
10%
5%
35 to 44
7%
4%
25 to 34
4%
3%
18 to 24
6%
4%
10 to 17
5%
0 to 9
5%
3%
5%
4%
Male
Female
Marital Status and Intermarriage
Inmarriage is traditionally a leading indicator of engagement with Judaism and the Jewish
community. Compared to intermarried Jewish adults, inmarried Jewish adults typically have stronger
ties to the organized Jewish community, are more likely to raise their children as Jews and provide
them with Jewish educational experiences, had more exposure to Jewish educational programs
themselves as children, and are more religiously observant.
Chapter 1: Demographics
Overall, nearly two-thirds (60%) of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee include a
married couple.9 Over half of these marriages (56%) are intermarriages, higher than the national
average of 44%.10 There is also a significant difference by age; the intermarriage rate for Jews aged
65 or older is 36%, compared with 64% for those aged 64 or younger. Less than half (42%) of all
intermarried households have children under 18.
Table 1.1. Intermarriage Rate for Married Respondents by Age
Age
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Overall
Note: weighted estimates, n=626
Intermarried
68%
64%
59%
36%
56%
Households with an intermarried couple tend to be far less involved in the organized Jewish
community than are households with inmarried couples. One-third (35%) of inmarried households
are highly involved in the community, compared to only four percent of intermarried households
(Figure 1.4). The difference is particularly stark in synagogue membership: three-quarters (76%) of
inmarried households belong to a synagogue, compared to one-fifth (22%) of intermarried
households.
Figure 1.4. Household Involvement by Marriage Type* (n=873)
100%
4%
17%
35%
80%
17%
32%
60%
44%
High affiliation
Moderate affiliation
39%
Low affiliation
40%
No affiliation
38%
20%
21%
12%
5%
0%
Unmarried
35%
Inmarried
Intermarried
Racial and Sexual Identification
Although the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community is very diverse in some ways, it is
relatively homogeneous in others. Community members were asked to describe their race as white,
black or African American, Asian or Asian American, or something else, with the possibility for
selecting as many of these options as they liked. They were also asked if they identified as Hispanic,
17
18
Chapter 1: Demographics
Latino, or of Spanish origin, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban. Nearly everyone identified as
white or Caucasian. The two most commonly selected racial identities other than white were
Hispanic (2%) and something else (3%), though the latter category consisted mostly of adults who
preferred to identify racially as “Jewish” or “human race.”
Table 1.2. Racial Identification of Respondents
Race
White (n=944)
Black or African American (n=944)
Asian or Asian American (n=944)
Something else (n=944)
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (n=937)
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
96%
<1%
<1%
3%
2%
About 6% of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee include someone who identifies
as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Although it is difficult to determine precisely how many Jewish adults
identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, the proportion appears to be about 3-4%, on par with Nashville
as a whole.11 Additionally, 15% of those who do not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual say they
have a close family member who does.
Political Views and Identification
Overall, the Jews of Nashville and Middle Tennessee tend to identify as politically liberal. Individuals
identified as liberal or very liberal by nearly a four-to-one margin over those who identified as
conservative or very conservative (55% vs. 15%). By a nearly identical margin, Jewish adults were
more likely to identify with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party (54% vs. 16%). Many
who did not identify with either major party indicated that they supported part of each party’s
platform or that they voted by candidate rather than party (n=21); a few specifically indicated that
they were disillusioned with politics altogether.
Educational Attainment
Jewish residents of Nashville and Middle Tennessee display patterns of very high educational
attainment. Overall, 86% of Jewish adults had received at least a bachelor’s degree, and 54% had
received an advanced degree.12 These figures are significantly higher than the national average of
58% of Jews with at least a bachelor’s degree, including 28% with an advanced degree.13 By
comparison, only 37% of white residents14 aged 25 and older in the seven-county study area have at
least a bachelor’s degree, including 12% with advanced degrees.15 The discrepancy might be partially
explained by the high proportion of Jewish households including at least one person who graduated
from or currently studies at Vanderbilt University, or who works for the university or its associated
Medical Center. Nearly one-third (31%) of households include at least one such person.
Chapter 1: Demographics
Figure 1.5. Educational Attainment of Jewish Adults in Greater Nashville (n=941, Jewish
respondents only)
High school or
less, 2%
Doctorate or
professional,
26%
Master's
degree, 29%
Some college,
11%
Bachelor's
degree, 32%
Labor Force Participation
Over three-quarters of Jewish adults are currently working, with 58% having full-time jobs and 12%
having part-time jobs. About one-in-five (20%) adults are retired. The highly affiliated are less likely
to be working full-time (48%) and more likely to be retired (26%); the difference in available leisure
time may explain in part the deeper involvement in Jewish life.
Of the 12% of individuals currently looking for work, just over half are either unemployed or are
working part-time. Throughout the Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin Metropolitan
Statistical Area, the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, and nationally the rate as of October 2015
was 5%.16
Jewish community members hold jobs in a large number of fields. Figure 1.6 shows the proportions
employed in the most common sectors.
19
20
Chapter 1: Demographics
Figure 1.6. Occupations (n=639)
Other,
25%
Social services
and non-profit,
13%
Legal,
7%
Medicine/healthcare,
17%
Education,
13%
Business and
finance,
17%
Science, technology,
engineering,
8%
Other fields of employment include arts and entertainment (n=21), administration (n=16), and sales
(n=15).
Income and Standard of Living
Overall, the Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee is relatively affluent. About 85%
describe their household’s standard of living as prosperous or at least comfortable, and very few
describe themselves as poor or nearly poor (2%; see Figure 1.7); more detailed information about
economically vulnerable households will be presented in the Health and Social Welfare section of
this report.
Figure 1.7. Self-Reported Standard of Living (n=900)
Nearly poor,
2%
Just getting
along, 13%
Living
reasonably
comfortably,
42%
Prosperous,
8%
Living very
comfortably,
35%
Chapter 1: Demographics
Income information is generally less reliable than perceived standard of living because about onequarter of respondents (27%) declined to provide their household income. However, those
respondents who did provide their income suggest that the Jewish community is significantly more
affluent by this measure than their neighbors in the surrounding community. Of respondents who
reported their income, half (50%) reported household income of $100,000 or more in 2014 (Figure
1.8). Ten percent reported incomes lower than $25,000. By contrast, among all households in the
seven-county study area with white householders,17 only one-quarter (25%) had household incomes
of $100,000 or more in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, and 18% had
household incomes lower than $25,000.18
Figure 1.8. Household Income (n=892)
< $25,000,
10%
>$200,000,
24%
$150,000 - $199,999,
9%
$50,000 $74,999,
15%
$100,000 $149,999, $75,000 $99,999,
17%
12%
$25,000 - $49,999,
13%
21
22
Chapter 1: Demographics
Chapter 2: Involvement in the Jewish Community
Chapter 2. Involvement in the Jewish Community
As previously described, much of this report will be framed by the degree to which Jewish
households are actively involved in Jewish life in Nashville and Middle Tennessee. For purposes of
this study, households and individuals have been arranged into four levels of involvement in the
organized Jewish community: no, low, moderate, and high involvement. Levels of involvement were
calculated based on affiliations with a membership-based Jewish organization, such as a synagogue,
or any Jewish school or camp; frequency of attendance at programs in the Jewish community;
volunteering for Jewish organizations in the past month; and making charitable donations to Jewish
organizations. The scores from these indicators were combined and levels of involvement assigned
based on a pre-established rubric. No involvement means that these households had the lowest
scores possible in each of these areas. A more detailed description of how these levels were
calculated can be found in the Introduction to this report.
Not all of those who actively engage in Jewish communal life have similar interests and needs.
Serving the whole community requires an understanding of these differences. This section explores
some of the differences in involvement in the Jewish community. In the sections that follow, a
number of examples illustrate salient differences in the interests and needs of members of the
community who get involved at different levels.
Overall Involvement
Based on an index described in the introduction to this report (page 10), over 80% of Jewish
households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee are involved in some way in Jewish communal life,
and nearly half (47%) are moderately or highly engaged. This is consistent with previous research
suggesting that relatively small Jewish communities often have high rates of involvement in Jewish
communal life among their members.19
Figure 2.1. Indexed Level of Involvement in Jewish Communal Life (n=852)
High, 18%
None, 18%
Moderate, 29%
Low, 35%
23
24
Chapter 2: Involvement in the Jewish Community
Relationship between Political Orientation and Involvement
Figure 2.2 illustrates the relationship between political orientation and Jewish communal
involvement among Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jews. Notably, there are higher proportions of
individuals who identify as conservative or very conservative among those whose level of
involvement in Jewish communal life is low or moderate than among those who are highly involved.
The proportions of political moderates are highest among those who are either not involved or
highly involved.
Figure 2.2. Levels of Involvement by Political Orientation (n=841, Jewish respondents only)
100%
10%
16%
18%
18%
80%
34%
60%
38%
37%
40%
47%
20%
20%
0%
39%
Very conservative
4%
13%
2%
3%
Low involvement
Conservative
42%
17%
12%
7%
No involvement
25%
Moderate involvement
Moderate
Liberal
High involvement
Very liberal
Relationship between Wealth and Involvement
Households that are more involved in the community tend to be more financially prosperous than
those that are uninvolved, with nearly three-fifths (58%) of highly involved households saying they
are “prosperous” or “very comfortable” compared to just one-quarter of uninvolved households. To
some extent this reflects the “cost” of Jewish involvement, including membership in organizations
and costs of Jewish education. Highly involved adults are older and have lived in the community
longer, factors that tend to contribute to increased wealth and stability as well as to connections to
the community. In addition, households with lower incomes may have less free time for
participation in voluntary activities than wealthier households.
Chapter 2: Involvement in the Jewish Community
Figure 2.3. Levels of Involvement by Standard of Living* (n=603)
100%
23%
25%
15%
10%
28%
33%
80%
23%
60%
10%
23%
High involvement
54%
40%
34%
29%
50%
Low involvement
41%
No involvement
20%
20%
0%
Moderate involvement
1%
Prosperous
13%
Living
comfortably
23%
28%
Living
reasonably
comfortably
Just getting
along
17%
Nearly
poor/Poor
Several people commented on their perception that leadership in the community was limited to the
wealthiest members. For example, one respondent wrote:
Even though it has grown greatly over the last several decades and is more inclusive, there still seems
to be an atmosphere of not being as welcoming as it should be, especially towards those not in
higher income situations. Although more is being done to encourage people to be more active, I
believe that leadership roles are still heavily governed by the ability to donate money and not nearly
as much on other commitments such as time and skills.
Indeed, the category with the greatest share of the highly involved is “prosperous.” Nevertheless,
over half of those who say they are prosperous live in moderately involved households.
25
26
Chapter 2: Involvement in the Jewish Community
Chapter 3: Religious Identity and Upbringing
Chapter 3. Religious Identity and Upbringing
Jewish identity can be measured in a variety of ways and begins with a positive affirmation of
Judaism as a religion or an ethnic identity. In some cases, adults with no Jewish upbringing identify
as Jewish if they marry a Jewish spouse, even in the absence of converting. In recent years, adults
who are the children of intermarried parents have become more likely to identify as Jewish, whether
or not they also identify with another religion. These trends illustrate the complex nature of Jewish
identity as the result of parentage, upbringing, Jewish education, and choices in adulthood.
Among Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish adults, about three-quarters were raised Jewish by
two Jewish parents. Just over half (54%) of Jewish children are being raised by two Jewish parents.
Among children of intermarried parents, 40% are being raised exclusively Jewish, by religion or by
culture. The largest share (47%), however, are being raised with no religion or the parents have not
yet decided on the religion of the children. Just 4% of children of intermarried parents are being
raised in another religion.
Jewish Identity of Adults
Adults in the community were classified based on responses to two questions about religion: 1)
“What is your religion, if any?” and 2) “Aside from religion, do you consider yourself Jewish?” In
addition, adults were asked if either of their parents were Jewish and in what religion they were
raised.
Adults who indicated their religion was Jewish and had Jewish parents, were raised Jewish, or
converted were classified as Jewish by religion (JBR). Nearly all Jewish adults (93%) in the Nashville
and Middle Tennessee Jewish community were identified as JBR (Table 3.1).
Adults who indicated they had no religion but considered themselves Jewish and had Jewish
upbringing were considered Jewish not by religion (JNR). Just 4% of Jewish adults identified in the
survey are JNR. It is not clear if the proportion is so low because JNRs were simply not recruited
into the survey sample or if some people who truly are JNR identified as JBR because they
recognized that this was a study of the Jewish community and they wanted to ensure they were
counted; it is likely both factors affected the estimate. Another 3% of Jewish adults indicated that
they were both Jewish and another religion.
A small fraction of other adults in Jewish households can be considered part of the extended Jewish
community. Two percent of these adults either have Jewish parents or were raised Jewish, but do
not consider themselves to be Jewish (Jewish background); another 2% of adults consider
themselves Jewish despite having no Jewish parentage, not being raised Jewish, and not converting
(Jewish affinity). Some in this category are married to Jews.
27
28
Chapter 3: Religious Identity and Upbringing
Table 3.1. Jewish Identification of Adults
Religion
All adults in Jewish HH
Jewish adults
Jewish by religion (JBR)
72%
93%
Jewish not by religion (JNR)
3%
4%
Jewish and another religion
3%
3%
Jewish background
2%
Jewish affinity
2%
Not Jewish
19%
Note: weighted estimates, n=1,015
Just under half of the Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee (45%) are Reform (Table
3.2). About one-quarter (24%) are Conservative, six percent are Orthodox, and another quarter
(24%) have no denomination and describe themselves as secular or cultural Jews or “just Jewish.”
The proportion who identify with no specific denomination is similar to the proportion in the
American Jewish community as a whole (30%).20
Table 3.2. Denomination of Jewish Adults
Denomination
Orthodox
6%
Conservative
24%
Reform
45%
Secular/culturally Jewish
14%
Just Jewish
10%
Reconstructionist/Renewal/Other
1%
Note: weighted estimates, n=984
Religion and Parentage of Adults
Three-quarters (77%) of Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee were raised by a Jewish
mother and father (Table 3.3). Another 15% had one Jewish parent. That proportion is significantly
higher for the youngest adults, of whom 41% had one Jewish parent. Of the 9% of Jewish adults
who had no Jewish parents, 98% (n=88) formally converted to Judaism.
Table 3.3. Jewish Parentage of Jewish Adults by Age*
Age Range
18-34
Father
only
9%
Mother
only
26%
Both
parents
61%
Neither
parent
4%
35-49
9%
4%
77%
10%
50-64
6%
5%
76%
12%
65 and older
1%
2%
91%
7%
Total
6%
9%
77%
9%
Note: weighted estimates, n=939
Chapter 3: Religious Identity and Upbringing
Religion and Parentage of Children
Just under half (45%) of all children in Jewish households are being raised by two Jewish parents,
and just over half (54%) of Jewish children are being raised by two Jewish parents (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. Parental Marriage of Children
All children (n=298)
Jewish children (n=266)
15%
18%
31%
45%
Inmarried
Intermarried
Not married
37%
54%
Nearly all (94%) children of two Jewish parents are being raised Jewish by religion (Figure 3.2). The
largest share (43%) of children of intermarried parents are being raised with no religion or the
parents have not yet decided on the religion of the children. Just 4% of children of intermarried
parents are being raised in another religion.
Figure 3.2. Religion in which Children are being Raised by Parental Marriage Type* (n=289)
100%
1%
1%
3%
4%
13%
4%
80%
47%
1%
25%
60%
94%
9%
40%
18%
57%
20%
22%
0%
Inmarried
Jewish by religion
Culturally Jewish
Intermarried
Partly Jewish
Not married
None/not decided
Another religion
29
30
Chapter 3: Religious Identity and Upbringing
Jewish Education of Adults
Thirteen percent of Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee attended a Jewish day school in
their childhood, and 79% attended a part-time Jewish school such as Hebrew school or Sunday
school. Just over one-third (37%) attended Jewish camp and over half (55%) participated in a Jewish
youth group. Over half of Jewish adults (54%) had a bar or bat mitzvah as a child and another 6%
had one as an adult.
Knowledge of the Hebrew language is a marker of Jewish education and exposure to Israel. In
addition, such knowledge can ease access to Jewish experiences such as prayers and news about
Israel. Just over a quarter (26%) of Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee indicate that
they understand at least some Hebrew; another 39% reveal that they can read the letters but not
understand the words.
Of uninvolved adults, 6% report that they understand most or all of what they read. Despite their
Hebrew proficiency, they do not participate in the activities of the organized Jewish community
(Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3. Hebrew Literacy by Communal Involvement* (n=871, Jewish respondents only)
100%
2%
80%
1%
4%
2%
20%
22%
2%
4%
8%
2%
27%
Can understand all of what is read
39%
60%
35%
Can understand most of what is
read
40%
43%
Can understand some of what is
read
40%
39%
20%
40%
35%
Don’t know Hebrew alphabet at all
25%
9%
0%
No
involvement
Low
involvement
Can read letters but do not
understand the words
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
Chapter 4: Geographic Profile
Chapter 4. Geographic Profile
It is estimated that three-quarters (74%) of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee
live in Davidson County, with an additional 16% in Williamson County. The remaining 10% of
households are spread across the remaining counties around the City of Nashville. The Jewish
community is primarily concentrated in the southwest portion of Davidson County between
Interstates 40 and 65. For the purposes of this analysis, the region is divided into Davidson County,
Williamson County, and the rest of Middle Tennessee.
Figure 4.1 (next page) illustrates the residential density of Jewish households in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee; additional maps showing the location of households of various types (e.g., synagogue
members, families with children, etc.) can be found in Appendix D. Each dot is randomly placed
within a ZIP code to represent five Jewish households residing there; the dots do not represent
exact addresses. Households are closely clustered in a corridor running south-southwest from
Midtown to the border between Davidson and Williamson Counties, with less dense pockets of
concentration elsewhere. This corridor includes neighborhoods such as 12 South, Belle Meade,
Forest Hills, and Bellevue.
Jewish Neighborhoods and Distribution
People who live in strong Jewish neighborhoods see the location as a strength in maintaining their
Jewish identity. More members, however, commented on the difficulty of accessing Jewish life for
those outside of the core geographic areas (n=26). One wrote:
There is a fair amount of geographic snobbery in this community. Although we are ostensibly the Jewish
community of Nashville and ‘Middle Tennessee,’ there is little meaningful outreach outside of Davidson
County. Given that the Jewish population here has historically been small and fairly centralized, that limited
geographic scope is understandable. However, as the Jewish population of this area grows and becomes less
centralized—as it is already starting to do—it is important that we not lose those members of the community
living outside the core of Metro Nashville.
Members suggested outreach and satellite programs that would reach outside the downtown area:
We live outside the main metropolitan area of any congregations/services. It would be nice if there were
outreach programs where something was brought to my area whether a service, Shabbat dinner, something
inclusive.
The family services people really work hard. They could create satellite services and areas so people do not
have to go all the way to the JCC. That would be helpful. Nashville is so spread out, it is hard for people to
have access.
31
32
Chapter 4: Geographic Profile
Figure 4.1. Dot Density Map of Jewish Households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee
1 - Chabad of Nashville
2 - Congregation Micah
3 - JFNMT, GJCC, JFS, & Akiva School
4 - The Temple
Note: 1 dot = 5 households
5 - West End Synagogue
6 - Congregation Sherith Israel
7 - Vanderbilt Hillel
Chapter 4: Geographic Profile
Others suggested building synagogues outside of downtown.
We need synagogues outside of the one strip of them on West End Avenue and the one distant one in West
Brentwood. There are plenty of Jews in Williamson County (because of the great public schools) like myself
who would be more likely to be a member/participant of a synagogue if one were nearer to home.
Geographic Distribution by Age
Davidson County hosts the majority (75%) of Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee
(Table 4.1). However, within age cohorts there is some variation. Young adults aged 18-34 are more
likely to live in Davidson County. About one-quarter (24%) of adults aged 35-49 live in Williamson
County.
Table 4.1: Residence of Jewish Adults by Age
County
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Overall
Davidson County
82%
69%
74%
74%
75%
Williamson County
12%
24%
16%
14%
16%
5%
7%
10%
12%
9%
Rest of area
Note: weighted estimates, n=940
Geographic Distribution by Household Type
In addition to regional differences by age, there are also differences based on the household
composition. About half of all households (49%) in Williamson County have children, compared to
less than one-quarter in Davidson County (24%) and in the rest of the region (21%; Table 4.2).
Young adult households are primarily located in Davidson County and comprise 12% of Jewish
households there.
Table 4.2: Household Types by Location
Household
Davidson
Williamson
Other Middle Tennessee
Households with children
24%
49%
21%
Young adult households
12%
<1%
4%
Senior-only households
26%
25%
24%
All other households
38%
26%
51%
100%
100%
100%
Total
Note: weighted estimates, n=1,009
33
34
Chapter 4: Geographic Profile
Geographic Distribution by Communal Involvement
Jewish adults who are highly involved in the organized Jewish community of Nashville and Middle
Tennessee are more likely to live in Davidson County, followed by Williamson County (Table 4.3).
About half of Jewish individuals in Davidson County are moderately or highly involved, compared
to just over 30% in Williamson County and nearly 20% in the rest of the area.
Table 4.3: Communal Involvement of Jewish Households by Residence*
No
involvement
Davidson County
15%
Williamson County
29%
Rest of area
26%
Overall
19%
Note: weighted estimates, n=849
Low
involvement
32%
41%
58%
36%
Moderate
involvement
32%
23%
13%
28%
High
involvement
21%
8%
4%
17%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Place of Origin
Nearly all (92%) Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee were born in the United States,
including 15% born in Nashville and Middle Tennessee (Table 4.4). Only 2% of Jewish adults were
born in the Former Soviet Union and 1% in Israel. Similarly, nearly all residents were raised in the
United States, including 21% in Nashville and Middle Tennessee and another 5% in other parts of
the state. Five percent of the community was raised outside the United States including places such
as Western Europe and Canada.
Table 4.4: Where Jewish Adults Were Born and Raised
Location
United States
Greater Nashville/Middle Tennessee
Rest of Tennessee
Other United States
Russia or Former Soviet Union
Israel
Another Country
Note: weighted estimates
Born (n=979)
92%
15%
2%
1%
5%
Raised (n=981)
95%
21%
5%
69%
1%
1%
3%
Chapter 4: Geographic Profile
Length of Residence
The Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee includes both long-term and more recent
residents. Nearly three-quarters (71%) of adults have lived in Nashville and Middle Tennessee for
over a decade, including 42% who have lived in the area for more than 25 years. However, 17% of
the community moved to the area after 2009.
Table 4.5: Length of Residence
Year Moved
Before 1976
23%
1976-1985
13%
1986-1995
22%
1996-2005
16%
2006-2015
26%
Note: weighted estimates, n=955
Reasons for Moving to the Area
Over the past couple of decades, Nashville and Middle Tennessee have seen consistent but slow
population growth. Individuals who were not born in the area were asked to identify their reasons
for moving to the area, and many indicated multiple motivations. The most frequently cited reason
was work (Table 4.6). Many others indicated reasons related to families, spouses, or partners living in
the area. Studying or working at Vanderbilt was also a common reason people came to the region.
Table 4.6: Reasons for Moving to Nashville and Middle Tennessee
Reason
n
Work
337
Spouse/partner
134
Family
127
Vanderbilt
103
Quality of life
55
Community
27
Jewish life
17
Other
14
Note: Unweighted counts, n=646
Some responses included more than one reason
Nashville and Middle Tennessee also attracted students to other universities besides Vanderbilt, as
well as those who were looking for a change in cost of living or weather.
Plans to Move Away
Most Jewish households have no plans to move away from the area; about 13% say that they have
plans to leave. Of these, about one-quarter (26%) plan to leave within the next year and another half
35
36
Chapter 4: Geographic Profile
(45%) expect to move away in the next five years. Eighteen percent indicated that they expected to
move away but had no timetable in mind for doing so. Younger community members were more
likely to plan to leave. Among Jewish adults aged 18-34, 30% indicated that they have plans to move
away.
The most frequent reasons for planning to move were to be closer to family and friends (especially
children and grandchildren), pursuing career opportunities, and looking for a better cultural match
(Table 4.7). Concerns about the culture included differences in political and religious views. Of the
individuals who mentioned plans to move, the most frequently desired destination was the
Northeastern United States (26%), followed by another city in the South (12%), Florida (10%), and
Israel (10%).
Table 4.7. Reasons for Moving Away
Reason to leave
Family/friends
Professional or work
Cultural mismatch
Climate or weather
Retirement
Better Jewish community
School
Social/medical services
Note: unweighted counts, n=93
Some responses included more than one reason
n
33
27
20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Chapter 5: Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Chapter 5. Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Although Judaism is frequently discussed in primarily religious terms, much of Jewish life is framed
by social and communal ties, and occasionally by experiences with antisemitism. The survey sought
to understand how members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community relate to
Judaism and the Jewish community, both locally and more globally. This section assesses several
measures of social and communal ties to the Jewish community.
Meaning of Judaism
Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jews were asked how they perceive Judaism to be associated with
certain traits, such as heritage and ethnicity. Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee
primarily see Judaism as a matter of culture and heritage. Nearly three-quarters of adults (71%) said
that Judaism is very much a matter of culture and 84% think it is very much a matter of heritage
(Figure 5.1). By contrast, only about half of Nashville Jews view Judaism as very much a matter of
religion or ethnicity.
Figure 5.1. Perceptions of Judaism
3%
Heritage (n=961)
84%
3%
11%
4%
Culture (n=963)
71%
2%
24%
Very much
Somewhat
A little
Ethnicity (n=951)
50%
25%
Religion (n=963)
49%
25%
0%
20%
40%
60%
11%
17%
80%
14%
Not at all
9%
100%
Although the notion of Judaism as a heritage and an ethnicity is shared by most members of the
Jewish community, perceptions about Judaism as a religion and as a culture vary more widely. The
higher the level of engagement in the Jewish community, the more individuals report that Judaism is
a matter of religion (Figure 5.2). Similarly, about four-fifths (81%) of highly affiliated Jews consider
Judaism very much to be a matter of culture, compared to about half (54%) of unaffiliated Jews.
37
38
Chapter 5: Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Figure 5.2. Perceptions of Judaism as a Religion by Communal Involvement* (n=869, Jewish
respondents only)
100%
25%
80%
42%
56%
60%
77%
32%
Very much
Somewhat
27%
40%
A little
21%
23%
Not at all
19%
20%
13%
4%
0%
No involvement
19%
16%
22%
Low involvement
Moderate
involvement
3%
High involvement
Jewish Friendship Networks
Research has shown that Jewish friendship networks are highly associated with Jewish engagement.
There are two key reasons for this: most people participating in Jewish organizations are Jewish, and
people tend to prioritize spending time with others who substantially share their interests and values.
As such, people who are more inclined to participate in Jewish communal life tend to seek out likeminded friends and participate more actively in Jewish organizations.
Although overall nearly all Jewish adults (89%) report that at least some of their friends are Jewish,
this figure varied widely depending on individuals’ connections to the community (Figure 5.3).
Young adults, new residents, and members of the community with no involvement are among the
groups with notably fewer Jewish friends than the greater population. In fact, about one-third (29%)
of young adults report that they have no Jewish friends. About one-fifth (19%) of new residents and
non-involved individuals (20%) similarly report having no Jewish friends. Sixty percent of highly
affiliated Jews, by contrast, report that most or all of their friends are Jewish.
Chapter 5: Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Figure 5.3. Proportion of Jewish Friends by Communal Involvement* (n=873, Jewish respondents
only)
100%
20%
7%
14%
19%
80%
43%
60%
21%
None
55%
52%
Some
20%
About half
19%
40%
49%
All
11%
17%
16%
12%
No involvement
Low involvement
24%
2%
0%
Most
7%
11%
Moderate
involvement
High involvement
Overall, 28% of Jewish adults indicate that most or all of their closest friends are Jewish, a rate
similar to that of the national Jewish population (32%).21
Connection to Jewish Communities
The majority of Jewish adults feel “somewhat” or “very much” connected to Jewish history, the
worldwide Jewish community, and to their Jewish peers. Likewise, Jews in Nashville and Middle
Tennessee are strongly connected to Jewish customs and traditions. Interestingly, despite feeling
connected to many aspects of their Judaism, many adults do not feel connected to their local Jewish
community; although about half (51%) feel “somewhat” or “very much” connected to the Jewish
community in Nashville and Middle Tennessee, nearly a quarter (23%) do not feel connected at all
to the local community.
39
40
Chapter 5: Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Figure 5.4. Connection to Jewish Life (Jewish respondents only, n=939)
100%
80%
60%
28%
39%
39%
54%
47%
23%
Very much
40%
32%
35%
20%
32%
20%
18%
9%
8%
23%
0%
Somewhat
31%
26%
2%
Local Jewish Global Jewish Jewish peers
community community
(n=962)
(n=959)
(n=962)
12%
A little
Not at all
20%
2%
Jewish history
Jewish
(n=964)
customs and
traditions
(n=961)
As one would expect, the connections one feels to the community are directly related to one’s level of
involvement in the community. Involvement may naturally be associated with greater feelings of
connection to the local community. In fact, individuals who are highly involved in the local Jewish
community are more than five times as likely as all other members of the community to feel very
connected to the community (82% vs. 15%). Notably, this connection also extends to other aspects
of the Jewish world. Individuals who are highly involved are more than twice as likely as all others to
feel very connected to the global Jewish community (66% vs. 32%), Jewish customs (85% vs. 38%),
and Jewish peers (78% vs. 31%),
Figure 5.5. Connection to Global Jewish Community by Communal Involvement* (Jewish
respondents only, n=848)
100%
18%
80%
30%
45%
26%
66%
60%
Very much
36%
40%
Somewhat
38%
36%
A little
19%
20%
18%
15%
No involvement
Low involvement
0%
Not at all
27%
16%
3%
Moderate
involvement
1%
6%
High involvement
Chapter 5: Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Figure 5.6. Connection to Local Jewish Community* (Jewish respondents only, n=845)
100%
1%
15%
9%
18%
80%
32%
28%
60%
83%
Very much
42%
Somewhat
43%
40%
A little
Not at all
56%
20%
31%
20%
13%
6%
0%
No involvement
Low involvement
Moderate
involvement
3%
High involvement
Many members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community consider it to be warm
and welcoming. One respondent indicated that the community’s strengths include “the warmth,
kindness and genuinely welcoming spirit of people regardless of affiliation or denomination.”
Another commented that “it also seems to be more welcoming of nontraditional families (interfaith,
gay, lesbian).”
Alternative Practices
Members of the Jewish community express their Jewish identities in a variety of non-religious ways.
Spirituality and religious practice often stem from a desire to connect with a higher power and be a
part of something greater than one’s self. While some individuals may choose to express their beliefs
through prayer or ritual practice, others may do so through alternative means such as yoga or
meditation.22 Approximately 26% of Jewish adults had practiced yoga or meditation in the past
month as a form of spiritual expression. Of these, over three-quarters (80%) attended Jewish
religious services less than once a month, suggesting that they may be seeking spiritual fulfillment
outside of traditional Jewish religious settings.
Other members of the community partake in newer Jewish “traditions,” such as eating Chinese food
on Christmas. (According to some sources, this is a folk tradition dating to the early 20th century,
when Jews and Chinese were the two largest non-Christian immigrant groups on New York’s Lower
East Side.23) About one-third (32%) of Nashville’s Jewish adults say they ate Chinese food last
Christmas.
41
42
Chapter 5: Jewish Social and Communal Ties
Chapter 6: Synagogue Membership and Ritual Life
Chapter 6. Synagogue Membership and Ritual Life
Jewish ritual life takes place both in synagogues and in homes. The survey sought to assess how
Jewish life is expressed through synagogue membership, attendance at programs organized by
synagogues, and ritual practices.
Synagogue Membership
Synagogues have historically been the primary religious institution for Jews in the United States and
the traditional means for formal affiliation with the Jewish community. For some, synagogue
membership is primarily an expression of religious belief, and overall, synagogue members have
higher rates of participation in religious and Jewish ritual life than do non-members. For others,
synagogue membership is primarily related to communal affiliation. Overall, synagogue members are
more likely to donate to Jewish organizations, volunteer for Jewish causes, and be connected to
Israel.
Comparable to the national rate of synagogue affiliation (39%),24 about four-out-of-ten (42%) Jewish
households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee belong to at least one local synagogue, with 5%
belonging to more than one. Almost half (48%) of long-time Nashville residents (i.e., those who
have lived in the area for 11 years or more) belong to a local synagogue, compared to 31% of
newcomers. Nearly all (90%) of the highly involved belong to at least one local synagogue, and
nearly a quarter belong to multiple synagogues.
Individuals most frequently cited not being religious (56%) or it not being a priority for them (54%)
as reasons for not being synagogue members. About half of newcomers to the region (50%) report
that the synagogues’ locations are an impediment to their joining, and almost one-quarter (24%) of
the long-time residents share this view. Cost (54%) was also a significant factor for about half of
recent residents, nearly double the rate for long-time residents (30%). Being an interfaith household
and not feeling comfortable or welcome to the synagogues also account for reasons why some do
not join.
Synagogue Programs
Table 6.1 shows the proportion of households in which someone has attended programs at each of
the local synagogues. In addition, for each synagogue, it shows the proportion of households who
are members of the synagogue in question, members of other synagogues, or not members of any
local Jewish congregation. Overall, more than three-quarters (82%) of households have been
represented at one or more programs organized by a local synagogue in the past year. Members of
the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community frequently attend programs organized by
synagogues in which they are not members. For each congregation, between one-quarter (27%) and
two-thirds (64%) of program attendees were not members of the synagogue, and about one-quarter
(28%) did not belong to any local synagogue.
43
44
Chapter 6: Synagogue Membership and Ritual Life
Table 6.1. Synagogue Program Attendance
All respondents
The Temple (n=746)
49%
Proportion of attendees who are…
Members of
the synagogue
48%
West End Synagogue
44%
(n=728)
Congregation Micah
39%
(n=715)
Congregation Sherith
26%
Israel (n=699)
Beit Tefilah Chabad
15%
(n=692)
Any synagogue program
82%
(n=787)
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Members of other
synagogues
27%
Members of no
synagogue
25%
46%
34%
20%
38%
32%
29%
38%
42%
20%
16%
64%
20%
72%
28%
Attendance at Religious Services
Almost half of synagogue members (48%) go to Jewish religious services once a month or more, not
including special occasions like weddings, and only 3% of people who do not belong to a synagogue
attend religious services at least once a month. Overall, about one-quarter (23%) of adult Jews attend
religious services at least once a month.
When Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community members attend synagogue services, they
tend to report positive feelings. Three-quarters (75%) feel connected to others in attendance and the
vast majority (84%) feel warmly welcomed. A smaller proportion (68%) feel inspired or emotionally
involved at services, but some (8%) indicated they did not understand the services. Adults younger
than 35 were more likely to feel warmly welcomed when they did attend services, and more likely to
feel inspired or emotionally involved.
Although most of the highly involved do attend services at least monthly, about one-quarter of them
(25%) do so less often. Involvement in the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community does
not necessarily come with religious observance, though the two are linked.
Table 6.2. Frequency of Attending Services by Involvement*
No
involvement
Never
72%
25%
6%
High
involvement
2%
Once or twice a year
26%
50%
27%
4%
2%
21%
40%
19%
About once a month
<1%
2%
12%
20%
Two or three times a month
<1%
2%
10%
24%
Once a week or more
<1%
1%
5%
31%
Every few months
Low involvement
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=850
Moderate
involvement
Chapter 6: Synagogue Membership and Ritual Life
Of those who ever attended services in the past year, about three-quarters (76%) attended High
Holiday services in 2014. Fifteen percent of those who are not formally involved in the Jewish
community attended these services, and nearly all (98%) of the highly involved adults did so.
Ritual Practice
As is found with many Jewish communities, celebrations of Hanukkah and Passover are widespread
in Nashville and Middle Tennessee. Hanukkah candles are lit in 86% of households and 81% of
Jewish adults attend a seder. Shabbat observance is less common, with half (49%) lighting candles at
least sometimes and 16% usually or always. By comparison, nationally, the 2013 Pew study reported
that only about 70% attended a seder in the previous year and 23% usually or always lit Shabbat
candles.25
Figure 6.1. Shabbat and Kashrut Observance
100%
80%
100%
80%
51%
Never
60%
60%
70%
Sometimes
40%
Usually
33%
20%
0%
8%
8%
Shabbat candles (n=974)
Not at all
Some rules
At home
40%
Always
All the time
20%
0%
22%
5%
4%
Respondent keeps kosher (n=947)
Most Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee (70%) do not follow any kosher rules at all,
though some (9%) keep kosher at home or all the time. By comparison, Pew reports that 22% of all
American Jews keep kosher at home.26
45
46
Chapter 6: Synagogue Membership and Ritual Life
Chapter 7: Jewish Education of Children
Chapter 7. Jewish Education of Children
Jewish education of children in the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community ranges from
programs for preschoolers through high schoolers, and includes both formal, school-based
education and informal education such as camp. This section describes the enrollment of Jewish
children in all forms of Jewish education and reports the proportion of children enrolled from
among all those who are age-eligible for the program. In addition to the figures shown here, there
are a small number of children enrolled in Jewish educational institutions who have become b’nai
mitzvah, who are being raised in no religion or whose parents have not yet decided in which
religion, if any, to raise their children.
Preschool Children
Overall, a greater share of preschool-aged Jewish children are enrolled in non-Jewish preschools
(55%) than in Jewish preschools (31%; Table 7.1). Inmarried parents are about equally likely to
utilize Jewish and non-Jewish preschools, but intermarried parents are far more likely to use nonJewish preschools (64%) than Jewish preschools (22%).
Table 7.1. Proportion of Age-Eligible Jewish Children in Preschool
Household Type
Jewish Pre-K
Non-Jewish Pre-K
Overall (n=92)
31%
55%
Inmarried HH (n=36)
41%
44%
Intermarried HH (n=43)
22%
64%
Synagogue member HH (n=66)
37%
43%
Synagogue non-member HH (n=26)
21%
67%
Recent resident (n=51)
26%
53%
Long-term resident (n=41)
40%
60%
No involvement (n=6)
11%
72%
Low involvement (n=19)
19%
53%
Moderate involvement (n=30)
30%
40%
High involvement (n=24)
55%
41%
Note: weighted estimates
Of the families without children currently enrolled in a Jewish-sponsored preschool or childcare
program, just 6% said that the child had previously attended one.
47
48
Chapter 7: Jewish Education of Children
Parents of children enrolled in a preschool or formal childcare gave many reasons for selecting their
chosen programs (Table 7.2). Cost was not a primary factor; only 37% of families said it was a very
important consideration. The fit of the program to the child’s needs and the program’s quality were
the most important considerations.
Table 7.2. Reasons for Choosing a Preschool
Reason
Fit for child (n=64)
86%
Quality or reputation (n=63)
83%
Program Content (n=63)
76%
Location (n=58)
74%
Social setting (n=61)
58%
Cost (n=58)
37%
Note: weighted estimates
The primary reason children are not enrolled in a preschool or childcare program is that the child is
receiving care at home. Other factors cited by some individuals include the lack of a good option,
the cost of childcare, and the location of childcare settings.
PJ Library
Nearly half (46%; n=352) of age-eligible families participate in the PJ Library program. The vast
majority of non-participants, 82%, say they do not receive books because they were not aware the
program existed.27 Very few are uninterested (2%) or say they have enough books already (8%). This
suggests there is an opportunity for the community to reach out to families with young readers and
inform them about the free books they can receive through PJ Library.
Formal Jewish Education
Formal Jewish education includes both full-time day school (Akiva School for grades K-6) and parttime schools. Overall, about 10% of age-eligible Jewish children are enrolled in day school, and this
rate is similar for inmarried and intermarried households. Another 55% of children are enrolled in
part-time school, but enrollment is higher for inmarried parents (62%) than intermarried parents
(45%).
Chapter 7: Jewish Education of Children
Table 7.3. Proportion of Age-Eligible Jewish Children in Formal Jewish Education
Household Type
Part-time
Day school
Overall (n=238)
55%
10%
Inmarried HH (n=100)
62%
12%
Intermarried HH (n=79)
45%
11%
No involvement (n=16)
29%
2%
Low involvement (n=48)
36%
4%
Moderate involvement (n=82)
61%
5%
High involvement (n=58)
53%
19%
Note: weighted estimates
Nearly half (43%) of part-time school parents considered other schools before selecting the one in
which they ultimately enrolled their children. Parents whose children were enrolled in part-time
Jewish schooling offered a variety of considerations for choosing a school (Table 7.4). The quality or
reputation of the school, the Jewish content of its curriculum, and the perceived inclusiveness of the
school were the most important factors. A slim majority of adults said that the cost or
location/transportation concerns were significant factors in their decisions.
Table 7.4. Reasons for Choosing a Jewish Part-Time School
Reason
Quality (n=127)
84%
Jewish content (n=128)
80%
Inclusive (n=127)
80%
Fit (n=127)
76%
Schedule (n=128)
57%
Location (n=128)
53%
Cost (n=128)
51%
Note: weighted estimates
Parents with children enrolled in the Akiva School (n=23) said their considerations in choosing the
school were, in decreasing proportions: the school’s fit with their children’s needs, its secular
academics, feeling welcomed by the school, its Jewish content, the family’s preference for Jewish
schooling, its cost, and its location/transportation issues. Of the other parents with age-eligible
children, only 29% (n=59) said that they had considered sending their children to the Akiva School.
The most common reasons given for not enrolling children in any formal Jewish education included
the lack of parent and/or child interest; the lack of an available, age-appropriate school; and the lack
of a school that meets religious preferences (Table 7.5). Cost, location, and scheduling were also
significant concerns.
49
50
Chapter 7: Jewish Education of Children
Table 7.5. Reasons for Not Enrolling Children in Any Formal Jewish Education
Reason
No parent interest (n=76)
No child interest (n=76)
No available program (n=72)
No religious fit (n=74)
Cost (n=74)
Location (n=75)
Scheduling (n=75)
Note: weighted estimates
44%
42%
37%
33%
31%
25%
25%
Informal Jewish Education
Informal Jewish education includes those forms of education that happen outside of the classroom:
day camp, overnight camp, and youth groups. Many children participated in multiple forms of
informal Jewish education in the past year (Table 7.6). Overall, about one-quarter (26%) of ageeligible Jewish children have participated in a youth group, and slightly fewer have attended
overnight camp (22%) or day camp (19%).
Table 7.6. Proportion of Age-Eligible Jewish Children Enrolled in Informal Jewish Education in
Past Year
Household Type
Day camp
Overnight camp
Youth group
Overall (n=165)
19%
22%
26%
Inmarried HH (n=76)
21%
27%
31%
Intermarried HH (n=56)
13%
16%
19%
Synagogue member HH (n=139)
20%
27%
34%
Synagogue non-member HH (n=26)
14%
3%
2%
Recent resident (n=61)
14%
20%
19%
Long-term resident (n=104)
22%
23%
30%
No involvement (n=7)
16%
5%
5%
Low involvement (n=36)
18%
18%
6%
Moderate involvement (n=54)
14%
16%
34%
High involvement (n=45)
25%
23%
26%
Note: weighted estimates
Chapter 7: Jewish Education of Children
The most important reasons for camp selection were the fit with the particular child as well as the
overall program quality (Table 7.7); nearly all parents who sent their children to Jewish camps
indicated that these were somewhat or very important considerations. Over half indicated that cost,
the Jewish programming at the camp, and the camp’s location were also somewhat or very
important considerations.
Table 7.7. Reasons for Choosing a Jewish Camp (Somewhat or Very Important)
Reason
Fit (n=71)
Quality (n=71)
Cost (n=71)
Jewish programming (n=70)
Location (n=71)
Note: weighted estimates
97%
94%
68%
59%
57%
Other reasons for choosing a Jewish camp include the programs offered at these camps and whether
friends or family were also attending that same camp.
Parents whose children did not go to a Jewish summer camp indicated that they and/or their
children had other preferences for activities during the summer, or that they were simply not
interested in a Jewish camp (Table 7.8).
Table 7.8. Reasons for Not Enrolling Children in Jewish Camp
Reason
Preference for other activities (n=145)
67%
Not interested (n=142)
62%
Cost (n=137)
33%
No religious fit (n=135)
23%
Location (n=135)
18%
No available program (n=134)
14%
Note: weighted estimates
51
52
Chapter 7: Jewish Education of Children
B’nai Mitzvah
The celebration of b’nai mitzvah is not only a marker of Jewish adulthood but, in most cases,
evidence of Jewish educational achievement. Among all girls aged 12-17 and all boys aged 13-17, just
over half (53%) have celebrated, or intend to celebrate, a bar or bat mitzvah. However, for children
being raised either exclusively or partially Jewish, 80% of age-eligible children have celebrated or
intend to celebrate a bar or bat mitzvah.
Table 7.9. Proportion of Age-Eligible Children who Had a Bar or Bat Mitzvah Ceremony
Household Type
Overall (n=143)
53%
Inmarried HH (n=62)
Intermarried HH (n=46)
76%
38%
Synagogue member HH (n=115)
Synagogue non-member HH (n=28)
85%
20%
Recent resident (n=37)
Long-term resident (n=105)
54%
53%
No involvement (n=13)
Low involvement (n=23)
Moderate involvement (n=56)
High involvement (n=35)
Note: weighted estimates
10%
57%
75%
62%
Chapter 8: Organizations and Program Participation
Chapter 8. Organizations and Program Participation
The Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community has over a dozen formal institutions
running a diverse set of programs intended to enable and promote Jewish communal life. Along
with synagogues and ritual offerings, described earlier in this report, these organizations sponsor
cultural, educational, and social programs devised to encourage individual connection to and
engagement with the Jewish community. Below, participation in programs provided by these
organizations is described in terms of organizational membership, program attendance and interest,
and sources for information about Jewish programming.
Jewish Organizations
About one-quarter (23%) of Jewish households say they are members of the Gordon Jewish
Community Center (GJCC). Among those who said they are currently members, 13% do not pay
dues. Another quarter of all households (28%) report that they are former members.
Aside from the GJCC and synagogues, community members are involved in a variety of other
Jewish organizations as well. Over one-quarter (28%) of households have a member who belongs to
a Jewish organization and over half (52%) have a member who belongs to a non-Jewish
organization.
Synagogue involvement appears to be the primary connection for the largest share of community
members. Of adults who are involved with any Jewish organizations, the highest level of
involvement is with synagogues, with one-third (32%) indicating that they were somewhat or very
involved (Figure 8.1). As would be expected, more families with children (18%) are somewhat or
very much involved in Jewish educational institutions, but they are less involved in Israel-related
groups (9%) and the Federation and CRC (10%) than are households without children. Highly
affiliated Jewish adults are involved in all types of Jewish organizations, but the most common for
this group are synagogues (59% very involved).
Figure 8.1. Level of Activity by Organization Type (Jewish respondents only)
A synagogue (n=902)
Jewish school or camp (n=890)
Israel-related organization (n=894)
15%
17%
16%
6% 4% 5%
4% 7%
11%
Very much
Service organization (n=876)
5%
Cultural organization (n=895)
3% 8%
11%
9%
13%
Federation or CRC (n=893)
5% 9%
11%
Membership organization (n=891)
6% 7%
12%
0%
10%
Somewhat
20%
A little
30%
40%
50%
53
54
Chapter 8: Organizations and Program Participation
Community members shared the reasons why they chose to engage with their preferred
organizations. Nearly all said that the topic or focus of the program (97%) or the length of time or
commitment needed (92%) are important. About two-thirds said that the cost (67%) or the location
(65%) are factors. Additional considerations include who else might be in attendance (87%) and the
family-friendliness of the program (42%). Other reasons mentioned include quality of programming,
as well as the mission or ideology of the hosting organization.
Jewish Program Participation
About one-fifth (20%) of Jewish households have a member who participates in Jewish programs at
least monthly (Table 8.1). Approximately one-third (34%) have no member who participated in any
Jewish programs in the past year. By comparison, Jewish households participate much more often in
programs sponsored by organizations outside the Jewish community. About one-third (38%) do so
at least monthly, compared with just 15% who never attend such programs. About half (49%) of
community members indicated that they would be more likely to attend a program if it is sponsored
by a Jewish organization, and most (49%) of the remainder indicated that Jewish sponsorship does
not matter in their decisions to participate in programs.
Table 8.1. Household Frequency of Attending Jewish and Non-Jewish Programs
Frequency
Never
Once or twice
Every few months
About once a month
Two or three times a month
Once a week or more
Note: weighted estimates
Jewish programs
(n=952)
34%
25%
22%
9%
6%
5%
Non-Jewish programs (n=948)
15%
21%
26%
17%
14%
7%
Types of Programs Attended
The Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community sponsors a number of special events
throughout the year. Among Jewish adults who attended programs, the most frequently attended
were the Chanukah Festival (56%) and the Nashville Jewish Film Festival (55%; Table 8.2).
Table 8.2. Attendance at Special Programs
Program
Chanukah Festival (n=750)
Nashville Jewish Film Festival (n=764)
Seder at a synagogue (n=755)
Israel Independence Day Celebration (n=753)
Israel Rally (n=753)
Global Day of Jewish Learning (n=736)
Note: Weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
56%
55%
46%
45%
41%
20%
Chapter 8: Organizations and Program Participation
Community members have participated in a wide range of program types as well, with the most
popular being cultural (69%), religious (69%), and social (65%). Within those program categories,
nearly all religious and Israel programs were sponsored by Jewish organizations, and most attended
fundraising, social, educational, and cultural programs as well.
Table 8.3. Attendance by Program Type and Sponsorship
Program type
Jewish-sponsored
Other sponsored
Religious (n=550)
98%
1%
Israel (n=288)
95%
3%
Fundraising (n=412)
84%
15%
Social (n=494)
75%
22%
Education (n=465)
70%
26%
Cultural (n=542)
65%
33%
Hobby (n=214)
38%
62%
Other (n=70)
52%
43%
Note: Weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Individuals also attended events with a focus on volunteerism, social justice, politics, and current
events.
Travel time may be a factor in decisions to participate in programs. Forty-two percent of adults
would be willing to travel 10-20 minutes, and another 37% would go 21-40 minutes. Only 15% were
willing to travel longer than that.
Sources of Information
Community members learn about programs from a range of sources, with the most common being
the Jewish Observer (66%) and through family and friends (63%; Table 8.4).
Table 8.4. Sources of Information about Jewish Programs
Source
Jewish Observer (n=914)
66%
Family or friends (n=902)
63%
Internet or social media (n=906)
59%
Synagogue or organization (n=914)
57%
Rabbi (n=884)
36%
Other (n=477)
23%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
In addition to hearing about events from the Jewish Observer, other sources of print media were
reported as being helpful ways to hear about Jewish programs (n=21). Television and radio were
also mentioned as sources of this information.
55
56
Chapter 8: Organizations and Program Participation
Seniors were more likely to learn about programs from organizations themselves (71%) and from
the Jewish Observer (75%). Families with children (51%), young adults (41%), and new residents (54%)
were less likely to get their information from the Jewish Observer than the overall population. New
residents were also less likely than the long-term residents (52% vs. 67%) to learn about events from
family and friends, no doubt in part due to their less developed local networks.
Community Strengths
Overall, members of the community have a favorable view of the major community organizations
(n=22) and their leadership (n=20). They are pleased with the variety of offerings (n=40), which
include “something for everyone across age, gender, level of observance, economics, etc.” and “a
wealth of opportunities for learning.” Some expressed the wish for more social programming (n=6).
Members appreciate the efforts of synagogues, the GJCC, and the Federation to work together. One
noted that “Nashville is unique in how the congregations and professional leadership intentionally
communicate and are open to opportunities to be present and learn together.” Another commended
the “strong leadership within the Nashville Jewish community from both a professional and
volunteer standpoint.”
Some individuals expressed gratitude for communal programs inclusivity and particularly its
openness to secular and cultural Jews. One person appreciated,
The value placed on being ‘just Jewish’ by the GJCC and Federation. The importance placed by the
community at large to include culture, wellness, sport, religious activities, Israel-related activities in its
programming and support.
Another praised “Jewish Family Service serving the GLBT community for adoption when no
one else will—this is the single thing that I am most proud of about our Jewish community.”
One recommendation, however, called for improved and coordinated communication, particularly
online (n=12). One suggestion was for a single monthly calendar showing all events, and another
was for daily emails of news and events. One member wrote, “the Jewish Observer is usually the best
source of news, but by the time I get it, it’s usually past the time of whatever was happening.”
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Chapter 9. Volunteering and Philanthropy
For many Jews, volunteering and making charitable contributions are essential aspects of Jewish life
and crucial means of expressing Jewish values. The survey sought to examine the levels of
volunteering and philanthropy among Jews in Nashville and Middle Tennessee.
Volunteering
Half of all Jewish adults say they had volunteered their time to any organization in the month prior
to taking the survey. Synagogue members (61%) and the Vanderbilt-affiliated adults (62%) were
more likely to volunteer than the overall population. Three-quarters (76%) of all volunteers say they
gave 10 or fewer hours of their time, and one-tenth (10%) said they volunteered more than 20 hours
(Table 9.1).
Table 9.1. Hours Volunteered in the Past Month
Hours Volunteered
1-10 hours
76%
11-20 hours
15%
21-40 hours
6%
41+ hours
4%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=512
Just over half (55%) of all volunteers donated their time to at least one Jewish organization; 14%
volunteered exclusively with Jewish groups, and 41% volunteered with a mix of Jewish and nonJewish organizations.
Figure 9.1. Types of Organizations Served (n=536, Jewish respondents only)
All Jewish,
14%
All non-Jewish,
45%
About equal,
12%
Mostly nonJewish,
19%
Mostly Jewish,
10%
57
58
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Long-time residents were more likely (61%) to volunteer for a Jewish organization, and young adults
(27%) were less likely. Nearly all of those with high involvement in the Jewish community (97%)
volunteered with a Jewish organization. The same is true for 77% of those with moderate
involvement. Among those with low involvement who volunteered at all, only 24% did so with a
Jewish organization.
For those who volunteered, whether for a Jewish organization or another organization, the most
common volunteer activity was service on a board or committee (Table 9.2).
Table 9.2. Volunteer Roles by Organization Type
Volunteer role
Jewish-sponsored
Other organizations
Board or committee (n=271)
31%
39%
Fundraising (n=269)
25%
30%
Professional services (n=266)
22%
29%
Programming (n=265)
19%
32%
Social services (n=266)
19%
36%
Outdoor or manual labor (n=265)
10%
23%
8%
16%
Other (n=115)
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Other types of volunteering activities include non-professional services, like registering program
participants and outreach to the people served by the organizations in question (n=12).
Table 9.3 shows the breakdown of volunteering activity by level of Jewish community involvement.
The highly involved are the only group more likely to hold any volunteer role with a Jewish
organization rather than other nonprofits. In general, those with no involvement in the Jewish
community are less likely to hold any volunteer role, except for social services and manual work.
Table 9.3. Volunteer Roles by Involvement and Organization Type
No
involvement
Jewish
Other
Low
involvement
Jewish
Other
Moderate
involvement
Jewish
Other
High
involvement
Jewish
Other
Board or
committee
Fundraising
52%
6%
61%
23%
42%
77%
9%
41%
4%
48%
19%
32%
63%
7%
Professional
services
Programming
30%
8%
46%
17%
37%
52%
8%
40%
0%
47%
14%
34%
43%
11%
Social services
64%
8%
38%
13%
41%
47%
14%
Outdoor or
48%
1%
manual labor
Other
24%
1%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
27%
8%
21%
26%
9%
17%
9%
17%
24%
8%
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Volunteer Causes
Volunteers select their volunteer activities at least in part based on the causes that they support.
Among respondents, the greatest interest in volunteering was for education, followed by poverty
and health.
Table 9.4. Volunteer Causes
Cause
Education (n=878)
Poverty (n=875)
Health (n=876)
Israel (n=888)
Culture (n=882)
Politics (n=873)
Other (n=353)
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
65%
52%
51%
45%
40%
32%
33%
Reasons for Not Volunteering
Of Jewish adults who did not volunteer at all, three-quarters (75%; Table 9.5) cited lack of time. Half
said they had not been asked to volunteer and about one-third (34%) cited lack of awareness of
opportunities to volunteer, suggesting that the community has not fully tapped its volunteer
capacity. Notably, 12% did not volunteer because opportunities to do so were in inconvenient
locations and 6% did not volunteer due to costs associated with volunteering.
Table 9.5. Reasons for Not Volunteering
Reason
No time (n=365)
75%
Not asked (n=338)
50%
Unaware of opportunities (n=340)
34%
No interest (n=334)
31%
Poor health (n=343)
19%
Inconvenient location (n=333)
12%
Cost of volunteering (n=326)
6%
Other (n=207)
24%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Volunteering for secular causes or organizations was mentioned by several respondents (n=19) as a
reason why they did not volunteer specifically for Jewish organizations. Another reason mentioned
for not volunteering for Jewish organizations was a lack of connection to, or feeling unwelcome in,
the organizations themselves (n=13).
59
60
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Charitable Donations
Nearly all Jewish adults (95%) indicated that they made a charitable donation other than
membership dues to any charity in the past year. Of donors, over one-quarter (27%) gave at least
$2,500 (Table 9.6).
Table 9.6. Amount Donated in Past Year by Communal Involvement*
Amount Donated
Overall
No
involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
Under $100
14%
36%
12%
8%
5%
$100 to $2,499
45%
55%
51%
43%
29%
$2,500 to $4,999
11%
8%
12%
13%
10%
$5,000 or more
16%
1%
7%
20%
43%
Prefer not to answer
14%
1%
19%
16%
13%
Note: weighted estimates, %, Jewish respondents only, n=853
Highly affiliated donors gave more to charity overall than those who are less affiliated (Table 9.6).
Over half of the highly involved and one-third of the moderately involved gave at least $2,500, as
opposed to 9% of the uninvolved. This is consistent with the higher income levels of the highly
affiliated members of the community.
Of all donors, about three-quarters (76%) made a gift to at least one Jewish organization and the
remaining one-quarter (24%) donated exclusively to non-Jewish organizations (Figure 9.2).
Regardless of level of affiliation, about 5% of donors directed all of their contributions to Jewish
organizations. Over half (58%) of highly affiliated donors contributed mostly or exclusively to
Jewish organizations.
Figure 9.2. Donations by Organization Type and Communal Involvement* (n= 831, Jewish
respondents only)
100%
1%
16%
24%
31%
80%
60%
8%
34%
26%
45%
39%
40%
20%
0%
26%
52%
26%
24%
19%
5%
8%
5%
5%
6%
Overall
Low involvement
Moderate involvement
High involvement
All Jewish
Mostly Jewish
About Equal
Mostly non-Jewish
All non-Jewish
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Over three-quarters (83%) of donors to Jewish organizations supported at least one local Jewish
organization. The Jewish Federation of Nashville and Middle Tennessee (JFNMT) was the most
frequently reported target of donations, followed by synagogues, Jewish Family Service, and GJCC.
(Note: donations did not include membership dues.) In addition to traditional donations, 37% of
age-eligible children had a B’nai Tzedek fund at the Jewish Foundation (n=97).
Table 9.7. Donations to Jewish Organizations by Communal Involvement (Jewish respondents
only)
Organization
Overall
Low involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
Federation (n=741)
58%
39%
59%
86%
A synagogue (n=740)
53%
29%
54%
86%
Jewish Family Service
(n=735)
GJCC (n=720)
36%
23%
31%
65%
26%
11%
19%
58%
Local branch of a
national org. (e.g., ADL)
(n=713)
Hadassah or NCJW
(n=727)
Akiva School (n=719)
23%
17%
18%
42%
23%
8%
19%
52%
19%
7%
13%
45%
Vanderbilt Hillel or
Chabad (n=718)
Other (n=644)
15%
4%
13%
36%
12%
9%
9%
24%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Reasons for Donating
The most important rationale cited by donors for contributions to particular organizations was the
specific cause or issue-area of the organization, followed by their impression of the management of
the organization (Table 9.8).
Table 9.8. Reasons for Donating
Reason
Cause (n=872)
96%
Management (n=847)
83%
Previously gave (n=844)
62%
Received request (n=839)
51%
Other (n=334)
30%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Other motivations cited as reasons for donating included the impact the organization or donation
(n=11) has as well as a sense of social obligation to do so (n=7).
61
62
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Fundraising appeals from Jewish organizations in Nashville and Middle Tennessee appear to be
relatively effective. Nearly all (97%) of the highly involved received a request to donate, while the
same is true for only 25% of the uninvolved. Less than half (40%) of young-adult-only households
received requests from Jewish organizations. About two-thirds of Jewish adults (68%) received a
fundraising request from a local Jewish organization, and of those who made donations to Jewish
organizations, 88% received a request. This high success rate of fundraising requests suggests there
is room for increased fundraising should Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish organizations
reach out to the remaining one-third of the community.
About half (51%) of donors are somewhat more likely to donate to Jewish organizations than nonJewish organizations (Table 9.9). Nearly all others (47%) indicated that a nonprofit’s religious or
ethnic focus does not make a difference to them.
Table 9.9. Effect of Jewish Sponsorship of Likelihood to Donate to Organizations by Communal
Involvement*
Overall
Much more
likely to
donate
A little more
likely to
donate
No effect
No involvement
Low
involvement
20%
0%
14%
Moderate
involvement
25%
31%
17%
29%
35%
44%
47%
81%
51%
40%
17%
6%
1%
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
A little less
2%
1%
likely to
donate
Much less
<1%
1%
likely to
donate
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=881
High
involvement
39%
Bequests
Overall, about one-tenth of households (9%) said they are leaving a bequest to at least one Jewish
organization in their wills. About three-quarters (76%) said they are not leaving such a bequest; the
remaining Jewish adults do not yet have a will.
Non-Donors
Individuals who made no charitable donations to any organizations in the past year were asked to
identify the key reasons why they did not donate. The most significant reason that non-donors cited
was that they could not afford to do so (Table 9.10). About one-third said they did not find a cause
that was right for them, and about one-third said they made no donation because no one asked.
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Table 9.10. Reasons for Not Donating to Any Organization
Reason
Can't afford (n=38)
72%
Not asked (n=35)
36%
Not right cause (n=34)
35%
Not a priority (n=34)
21%
Other (n=19)
24%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Reasons for Not Donating to Jewish Organizations
Individuals who did make charitable donations in the past year but did not contribute to Jewish
organizations cited a preference for other types of charities (n=37), not finding the right opportunity
(n=14), and being unaware of local Jewish organizations (n=13).
Similar patterns appear for those who gave to Jewish organizations but not JFNMT. Overall, 174
people gave specific reasons why they did not donate to JFNMT. Three of the most common
reasons cited were that they prioritized giving to other causes, could not afford to make a donation,
or were not involved with JFNMT. Some individuals indicated they were unhappy with the
organization for various reasons, including disagreements with the way resources are allocated, a
sense that small donors may not be as valued as big donors, and political disagreements.
Table 9.11. Reasons for Not Donating to JFNMT
Reason
n
Prioritizes other causes
50
Can’t afford
43
Unhappy with JFNMT
43
Not involved with JFNMT
28
Didn’t like the way they were asked
17
Note: unweighted estimates
63
64
Chapter 9: Volunteering and Philanthropy
Chapter 10: Israel
Chapter 10. Israel
Israel is an important part of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community’s focus as
demonstrated by the presence of a shlicha (an Israeli emissary) and the relationship with a Jewish
Agency for Israel (JAFI) Partnership Region, Hadera-Eiron. Emotional attachment and political
views among community members are developed, in part, through their personal connections to
Israel as a result of travelling to Israel, having friends and family in Israel, and following news about
Israel.
Travel to Israel
Overall, 51% of Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee have been to Israel, including 21%
who have visited more than once; by contrast, 43% of all American Jews have been to Israel,
including 23% who have visited more than once.28 Ten percent of Jewish adults in Nashville and
Middle Tennessee have visited four times or more. Individuals with a Vanderbilt affiliation are more
likely than the general Jewish public to have gone to Israel on multiple occasions (29%). Of those
individuals who have no involvement with the Jewish community, 80% have not been to Israel, and
another 16% have gone only once. The majority (60%) of those with low involvement have also not
been to Israel.
Table 10.1. Times Visited Israel by Communal Involvement*
Overall
No involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
Never
49%
80%
60%
43%
16%
Once
30%
16%
30%
36%
26%
Twice
7%
1%
3%
11%
15%
Three times
4%
0%
3%
2%
10%
Four times
10%
3%
4%
9%
33%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=935
Of Jewish adults aged 42 or under,29 nearly one-third (31%) who have ever been to Israel have gone
on a Birthright Israel trip.
Connections to Israel
Members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community demonstrate somewhat
stronger connections to Israel than the American Jewish population as a whole. Overall, 69% of
Jewish adults indicated that they felt “somewhat” or “very much” connected to Israel, the same
proportion as in Pew’s national study of the American Jewish community.30 However, in Pew’s
study, the proportion who said they were “very much” connected to Israel was 32%; in Nashville
and Middle Tennessee, the proportion is 42%.
Notably, 42% of individuals whose households have no formal involvement in the organized Jewish
community and 62% of those with low involvement say they are somewhat or very much connected
to Israel. Among the highly involved, the proportion is 91%.
65
66
Chapter 10: Israel
Table 10.2. Connection to Israel by Communal Involvement*
Overall
No involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
Not at all
11%
23%
13%
6%
<1%
A little
20%
34%
25%
17%
8%
Somewhat
27%
18%
29%
30%
23%
Very much
42%
24%
33%
46%
68%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=940
Emotional connections to Israel can often be instilled through communal organizations and
institutions, but may be further enhanced by a personal connection to the country, such as having
friends or family living there. About half of Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish adults have
family and/or friends living in Israel, which may help explain the stronger connection to Israel of
Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jews compared with the American Jewish population overall.
Table 10.3. Friends and Family in Israel*
Overall
No
involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
Family
20%
19%
25%
17%
16%
Friends
14%
9%
11%
18%
22%
Both
16%
7%
11%
20%
29%
Neither
50%
64%
54%
45%
33%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=939
The majority (69%) of Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jews, regardless of their involvement in the
community, believe that Israel receives an appropriate amount of attention from local Jewish
organizations. Two-thirds of the remaining Jewish adults feel that Israel receives much too little or
somewhat too little attention from local Jewish organizations. It is noteworthy that members of the
community with low involvement (30%) were nearly twice as likely to respond that Israel is not
getting enough attention as individuals who have no (17%), moderate (16%) or high involvement
(17%).
Knowledge about Israel
One measure commonly associated with connection to Israel is the frequency with which one
actively seeks news about Israel. Half (50%) of Nashville and Middle Tennessee’s Jewish community
seeks such news once a week or more; 22% seek news about Israel at least once a day, and 20%
never seek such news. Young adults, however, are much less likely than any other segment of the
population to follow Israel in the news: about one-third (34%) never do, and nearly half (45%) only
follow once or twice a month.
Nearly half (44%) of Jewish adults are aware that Nashville has a community shlicha, or Israeli
emissary; of these, less than half (39%) have had contact with her. About one-third (32%) of adults
believe Nashville has a JAFI Partnership Region in Israel. Of these, 60% correctly identified this area
67
Chapter 10: Israel
as Hadera-Eiron and another 35% said they could not recall the name of the region; only about 5%
listed an incorrect city or region. Overall, about one-fifth (19%) of Jewish adults in Nashville and
Middle Tennessee correctly identified the JAFI Partnership Region. (People who were not aware of
the Partnership Region at all are counted here as being unable to identify the region.)
Table 10.4. Knowledge about Nashville’s Connections to Israel
Overall
Believes Nashville hosts an Israeli
shaliach* (n=940)
44%
No
involvement
13%
Low
involvement
29%
Moderate
involvement
62%
High
involvement
83%
Unsure if Nashville has a shaliach*
(n=940)
52%
82%
66%
33%
16%
Has had contact with the
39%
shaliach* (n=527)
Thinks that Nashville has
32%
partnership region in Israel*
(n=937)
Unsure if Nashville has a
65%
partnership region in Israel*
(n=937)
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
1%
19%
29%
75%
8%
18%
42%
75%
85%
79%
56%
25%
Political Views about Israel
To assess respondents’ views about the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, the survey
included questions about dismantling Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the permanent status of
Jerusalem, and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Nearly half (44%) of Jewish adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee believe that Israel should be
willing to dismantle some or all of its settlements in the West Bank as part of a permanent
settlement with the Palestinians. About one-fifth (21%) say Israel should dismantle no settlements,
and about one-third (35%) say they do not know or are unsure (Table 10.5).
Table 10.5. Dismantling Israeli Settlements in the West Bank
In the context of a permanent
settlement with the Palestinians,
should Israel be willing to…
Dismantle all of the settlements in
the West Bank
No
involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
10%
8%
11%
15%
5%
Dismantle some of the settlements
in the West Bank
34%
44%
32%
36%
36%
Dismantle none of the settlements
in the West Bank
Do not know/unsure
21%
11%
21%
20%
30%
35%
37%
36%
29%
29%
Overall
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=923
68
Chapter 10: Israel
When asked if Israel, also in the framework of a permanent peace settlement with the Palestinians,
should be willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction,
nearly half (46%) say no, while just over one-quarter answer yes (27%; Table 10.6). The rest (27%)
are uncertain. Adults between the ages of 35 and 49 (18%) and those who have a high level of
involvement (17%) in the organized Jewish community are least likely to think that Jerusalem should
be divided than are other subgroups of the population.
Not surprisingly, people who are more involved in the community are more willing to express an
opinion on the issue. They also tend to be less willing to compromise on the status of Jerusalem.
Table 10.6. Status of Jerusalem by Involvement*
In the framework of a permanent
peace with the Palestinians, should
Israel be willing to compromise on
the status of Jerusalem as a united
city under Israeli jurisdiction?
Yes, compromise
No, do not compromise
Do not know/unsure
No
involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
27%
24%
30%
33%
17%
46%
27%
45%
31%
33%
37%
52%
14%
64%
20%
Overall
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=919
Finally, when Jewish adults were asked if they support or oppose the establishment of a Palestinian
state in the current situation, 46% were in favor, 26% opposed, and the remaining 27% were
uncertain. Although the differences between members of the community who have different levels
of involvement are not statistically significant, it does appear that the highly involved are somewhat
less favorably inclined toward the establishment of a Palestinian state than all other groups. Notably,
they are also least likely to have a firm opinion. The relatively equal division of opinions held
specifically by those with high involvement is an interesting finding, despite not being statistically
significant.
Table 10.7. Establishment of a Palestinian State by Involvement
In the current situation, do you
No
favor or oppose the establishment
Overall
involvement
of a Palestinian state?
Favor
46%
48%
Oppose
26%
20%
Do not know/unsure
27%
31%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=918
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
49%
24%
27%
48%
31%
21%
35%
32%
34%
Chapter 10: Israel
Community Attention to Israel
Although some individuals felt that there was community solidarity on Israel-related issues, others
(n=13) felt that the community should be less focused on Israel and more open to diverse views.
One respondent said:
I find the community very politically conservative and hawkish about Israel. There's no room to discuss and
debate different ways of supporting Israel. The issue has ripped our community apart.
Others suggested “helping people in their own back yard who need help rather than raising funds
for Israel.” In the words of one community member:
Scale back the Israel stuff. It’s become the 800-pound gorilla that is eating up resources. Plus, it’s the main
source of division and fighting in the community. Let’s refocus on local things that we can unify around.
69
70
Chapter 10: Israel
Chapter 11: Relationships with the Broader Community
Chapter 11. Relationships with the Broader Community
As a religious minority, American Jews need to contend with the challenges of living peacefully with
non-Jewish neighbors. In Nashville, sometimes referred to as the “buckle of the Bible Belt,” these
challenges are exacerbated by the strong evangelical Christian presence in the surrounding
community and, most notably, in local and state government. The Nashville and Middle Tennessee
Jewish community has coexisted peacefully with its non-Jewish neighbors for most of its history, but
there have been periodic antisemitic disruptions, including a bombing of the Gordon Jewish
Community Center in 1958, claimed by a white supremacist group,31 and two incidents that occurred
shortly before the launch of this survey.
Antisemitism
On March 14, 2015, three swastikas were spray-painted inside the fraternity house of Alpha Epsilon
Pi, a traditionally Jewish fraternity, on the Vanderbilt University campus. And on April 13, 2015, a
single bullet was fired into West End Synagogue as local Jewish leaders were preparing to attend the
annual Tennessee Holocaust Day of Remembrance at the State Capitol. The survey was launched on
April 15, 2015.
Despite these recent incidents, few adults (15%) say that they personally experienced antisemitism in
the past year. This figure mirrors Pew’s 2013 findings, albeit imperfectly, that 15% of all American
Jews had personally “been called offensive names or snubbed in a social setting [in the past year]
because they are Jewish.”32 Of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jews who did mention having
experienced antisemitism, only a handful mentioned the recent incidents in the community. More
synagogue members feel that they personally have experienced antisemitism (19%) than nonmembers (12%). Members of West End Synagogue, whose building was shot at this past spring,
were more likely than others to say they had experienced antisemitism in the past year—one-quarter
did so. Yet despite the swastikas spray-painted inside a campus building, community members
affiliated with Vanderbilt were actually slightly less likely to report having experienced antisemitism
in the past year than were other members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish
community.
Community members expressed the need for the local government to do more to address
antisemitism (n=38), in particular on college campuses (n=10), as well as more generally supporting
programs that promote interfaith inclusivity and tolerance (n=38). Others specifically felt that the
government should increase safety and security for Jews (n=15). One community member wrote:
Having been in Paris for work in December33—and recently the Vanderbilt incident and the shooting at
West End Synagogue—I am just nervous. I might not feel a strong connection to Israel—and I might not
believe that a peace agreement will be agreed upon there —but antisemitism across the world is becoming
more prevalent. (It was always there, people just seem more comfortable being more vocal in their
ignorance.) It’s very disconcerting. I think local government and schools need to address these issues.
Shoving tolerance down the throats of kids isn’t going to make them feel more kindly towards a people or
religion they do not understand or care to, but open dialogue is necessary. Stereotypes need to be continually
broken.
71
72
Chapter 11: Relationships with the Broader Community
Another asked:
Why did someone shoot at West End Synagogue? What can we do to maintain good interfaith relations
between all faiths but especially the Abrahamic ones that often conflict?
The more highly involved members of the community are the most likely to report that they have
experienced antisemitism in the past year; this is consistent with other recent research on young
adult Jewish students’ experiences with antisemitism on college campuses in the United States.34 The
greater reports by highly affiliated Jews might indicate their heightened awareness of antisemitic
incidents in the community or their greater inclination to interpret acts to be antisemitic. Of those
who mentioned local antisemitism, many blamed it on ignorance rather than malicious intent.
Table 11.1. Experience with Antisemitism in Past Year by Communal Involvement
Involvement Level
Respondents
None
8%
Low
13%
Moderate
19%
High
21%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=872
Although few Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish residents experienced antisemitism personally
in the past year, many are concerned about it (Figure 11.1). Concern about antisemitism on college
campuses and globally, however, is higher than concern in the local community. Whereas 67% are
“somewhat” or “very much” concerned with antisemitism in Nashville and Middle Tennessee, 79%
are equally concerned about antisemitism on US college campuses. Ninety-seven percent of Jewish
adults are “somewhat” or “very much” concerned about antisemitism around the world.
Figure 11.1. Concern about Antisemitism (Jewish respondents only)
100%
80%
35%
50%
76%
60%
Very much
Somewhat
32%
A little
40%
29%
20%
Not at all
21%
13%
12%
8%
Local (n=963)
Collegiate (n=958)
0%
21%
1%
2%
Global (n=965)
Chapter 11: Relationships with the Broader Community
Separation of Church and State
A particular concern of local community members was the separation of church and state, most
notably as it presents in the public school system (n=58). Holiday accommodations for Jewish
children in public schools were cited as being inadequate (n=31). Some respondents indicated that
textbooks used in public schools were biased (n=18). For example, three community members
called for the government to stop public schools from subjecting their children to discrimination or
disrespect because they are Jewish:
Removing holiday celebrations and decorations for Christmas and Easter in our public schools. My children
have been subjected to this every year and the schools do not care that not all children participate in these
holidays nor that they are violating the Constitution.
Allow my child to miss school for High Holidays without counting it as an “excused” absence that does
count against her total number of days missed. Stop behaving as if everyone in Williamson County is a
devout Christian, and that a Jewish kid is an anomaly, and treat her with respect.
I live in Williamson County where there seems to be confusion about the separation between church and
state. Our county seal has a cross on it and they are always trying to change things like ‘winter break’ to
‘Christmas Break.’ Even at my son’s top level private school, there is a lot of ignorance and ridiculous beliefs
about Jews in very well-educated (?!) and wealthy families. I would just like to know that the general
community supports the rights for Jews to exist and pray in peace. I would like for the perpetrators of the
antisemitic terror on the shul and the frat house to be caught and brought to justice.
A recent effort in the Tennessee state government to declare the Bible to be the state’s “official
book” was a cause of concern for others (n=9). One respondent wrote:
There was recently a push on the state level to make the Christian Bible the ‘official book’ of Tennessee.
While I'm sure this will certainly die an ignominious and well-deserved death, there is too often organized
prayer at school or local functions, and that prayer almost always means Christian. If they say it’s ‘nondenominational,’ it’s still Christian. I know I’m in the Bible Belt, but this has to stop.
Improved Relationships with Non-Jews
Jewish members of the community suggest that strengthened relationships and coalition building
with the non-Jewish community can lead to mutual tolerance and respect (n=29). The goal is to
“Build better relationships with non-Jews as a means of mitigating cultural misunderstandings and
misconceptions about Jews.” Community members wrote:
Reach out more and form common bonds with the general community. This should be done because it is the
right thing to do, and it is also the smart thing to do. Common bonds are the best antidote to antisemitism.
Go back to the old CRC approach of coalition building and being an ally to other groups on issues important
to them. Seems like now all we care about is whether they are with us on Israel. Focusing only on what they
can do for us will erode relationships, not build them. There needs to be mutuality. We can’t only take. We
have to give also.
Strengthening Israel advocacy by reaching out and strengthening relationships with supportive Christians and
Christian organizations.
Other community members suggest more balance in public education about Israel and Jews so that
non-Jews will be more informed about Jewish history and Israel (e.g., increase teaching about Israel
and the Holocaust in public schools and ensure that what is taught is accurate and unbiased; n=18).
73
74
Chapter 11: Relationships with the Broader Community
More generally, “Educate. More outreach—awareness of Jewish practices—into greater community.
Reduces mystery, fear of unknown.”
Chapter 12: Young Adults
Chapter 12. Young Adults
Engagement of young Jewish adults is among the central foci for the Nashville and Middle
Tennessee Jewish community. For the purposes of this study, young adults are defined as those
between the ages of 18-39 who do not have children. They include college students at school outside
of Nashville whose parents still consider them part of the household, individuals living with their
families, and individuals living independently. There are approximately 1,300 young adults in
Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish households, of whom 900 are Jewish. There are
approximately 450 “young adult households” in the community, defined as households comprised
solely of individuals aged 18-39 without children.35
Age and Gender
Slightly more than half (58%) of Jewish young adults are female (n=178). About one-quarter (22%)
are typical college ages (18-22), more than half (54%) are between ages 23 and 29, and another
quarter (26%) are in their thirties (Figure 12.1).
Figure 12.1. Age of Jewish Young Adults (n=178)
35-39,
8%
18-22, 22%
30-34, 18%
23-29, 54%
Schooling and Employment
Most young adults are employed, either full-time (64%) or part-time (26%; n=118). About onequarter (23%) are currently looking for work (n=118), including some who are unemployed and
some who are already employed. Over one-quarter (27%) are full-time students and another 2% are
part-time students (n=118). About one-third hold a bachelor’s degree and half have completed
advanced degrees (Figure 12.2). Among current students, about one-third (35%) are working toward
a bachelor’s degree, 16% toward a master’s degree, and 42% toward a doctoral degree, with the
remnant participating in continuing education programs (n=42).
75
76
Chapter 12: Young Adults
Figure 12.2. Educational Attainment of Jewish Young Adults (n=128)
PhD or
Doctorate,
11%
Other, 2%
MA/MS, 39%
High school
or less, 12%
Associate,
2%
BA/BS, 34%
Living Situation
Over one-third (34%) of Jewish young adults are living with parents (n=178). Another 17% of
young adults are living alone, and the remainder are living with other adults including roommates,
spouses or partners, or other adults. Parents of young adults indicate that they are living at home
because they are “in transition” (n=40) or because they enjoy it (n=37).
Thinking about the future, about one-in-four (26%) Jewish young adults plan to leave the area
(n=174), with the majority of those expecting to leave in 1-5 years.
Religious Background
Jewish young adults are more likely than older adults to have been raised by only one Jewish parent
(36% vs. 11%; Figure 12.3).
Figure 12.3. Jewish Parentage of Jewish Adults* (n=1,005)
100%
80%
9%
6%
5%
5%
25%
11%
60%
Neither parent
Mother
40%
80%
Father
60%
20%
0%
Older adults
Young adults
Both parents
Chapter 12: Young Adults
A plurality (42%) of young adults are Reform, similar to the rate in the community overall. However,
about one-third (31%) have no denomination and identify as secular or culturally Jewish, or “just
Jewish.”
Table 12.1. Denomination of Jewish Young Adults
Denomination
Orthodox
6%
Conservative
21%
Reform
42%
Secular/culturally Jewish
19%
Just Jewish
12%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=175
Friendships, Dating, and Marriage
Interfaith dating and marriage do not appear to be concerns for most Jewish young adults in
Nashville and Middle Tennessee, as expressed by their attitudes and behavior. In fact, Jewish social
life is not the norm, with 29% indicating that they have no Jewish friends, and only 15% saying that
most or all of their friends are Jewish (n=166).
Among Jewish young adults, about half (53%) are unmarried, and the remainder are married (27%),
living with a fiancée (4%) or with a partner (15%; n=88). Of those who are unmarried, 40% have a
relationship with a significant other (n=53). Among Jewish young adults who are living with a
spouse or partner, less than one-quarter (22%) are relationships between two Jews. Among those
who are dating, 13% are dating other Jews (n=18).
Among Jewish young adults who are not dating, 42% say it is not at all important to date Jews;
among those who are unmarried, 55% say it is not at all important to marry a Jew (Figure 12.4).
However, nearly half (48%) say it is very important to raise their children Jewish.
Figure 12.4. Importance of Jewish Dating, Marriage, and Children (n=90)
100%
80%
42%
7%
16%
55%
29%
60%
19%
40%
12%
19%
20%
16%
48%
20%
16%
Dating Jews
Marrying Jews
0%
Very important
Somewhat important
A little important
Jewish kids
Not important
77
78
Chapter 12: Young Adults
Program Participation
Almost three-quarters of young adults had been invited to a Jewish program in the past six months
(n=92) and over half (56%) have participated in at least one of these programs. The NowGen
Nashville program, sponsored by the JFNMT, has the greatest reach, followed by the synagogues
and JFNMT’s other programs. The synagogues, however, had the greatest participation rate for
young adult programs, followed by NowGen and JFNMT. Nearly all (94%) express interest in
greater involvement in the community.
Table 12.2. Engagement with Local Jewish Organizations
Program
Invited but did not participate
Participated
Synagogue (n=106)
16%
39%
NowGen (n= 105)
36%
31%
Federation (n=103)
22%
27%
Hillel (n=102)
5%
18%
Chabad (n=99)
7%
7%
18%
17%
Other (n=88)
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Other programs in which young adults participated were sponsored by the Akiva School, the GJCC,
Jewish Family Service, and NCJW/Hadassah.
One respondent made a point of underscoring that the community should work toward more
“outreach to young folks,” especially those who are new to the area. This sentiment was echoed by
several others who advocated for more engagement of young adults in the community. Such
outreach in the form of NowGen is important; in another respondent’s words, one strength of the
Nashville Jewish community is the “emphasis on young adult program[s] through NowGen,” which
they find to be a “critical” aspect of the community.
A majority of young adults are interested in becoming more involved in the Jewish community, with
54% saying that they are “very” or “somewhat” interested (n=114). In general, they would like to
attend more activities at synagogues and other organizations, and more opportunities for
volunteering. Many young adults stressed that they would like more social events, especially young
professional/young adult-centered activities. Some mentioned wanting to “[develop] a closer group
of Jewish friends around my age” and would “love to be approached about a young person’s activity
night, young couples group” and more social and cultural activities for young professionals.
Engaging religiously and/or through the synagogues also appeals to young adults (n=10).
Volunteering and Philanthropy
Two-thirds (63%) of Jewish young adults in Nashville and Middle Tennessee have done some
volunteer work in the past month, most for fewer than 10 hours. Among volunteers, two-thirds
(67%) volunteered only for non-Jewish organizations and another 14% mostly for non-Jewish
organizations (n=162). Nearly all have made some charitable donation in the past year, but about
half of those (47%) have donated only to non-Jewish causes (n=154).
Chapter 12: Young Adults
Connections and Attitudes
Jewish young adults feel more connected to the worldwide Jewish community than they do the local
Jewish community (Figure 12.5). Less than half (40%) are somewhat or very connected to Israel.36
However, two-thirds of Jewish young adults (63%) have been to Israel (n=163), and half of that
group have gone on a Birthright Israel trip.
Figure 12.5. Connections with Israel and the Jewish Community (n=164)
100%
22%
80%
17%
31%
16%
18%
60%
32%
40%
Very much
36%
Somewhat
A little
41%
Not at all
22%
20%
31%
18%
15%
Israel
Worldwide Jewish
community
0%
Local Jewish community
79
80
Chapter 12: Young Adults
Chapter 13: Health and Social Welfare
Chapter 13. Health and Social Welfare
The Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community offers an array of services intended to help
its members and neighbors preserve their good health and promote social welfare. The survey asked
many questions about the health and well-being of individuals and their families. This section
presents some of the key findings.
Health Status, Counseling, and Need for Assistance
Health status is a concern for the Jewish community both because it may indicate unmet needs for
community-based services and because it may affect individuals’ ability to participate in communal
life. Indeed, 15% of all Jewish households in Nashville and Middle Tennessee include at least one
member who is in fair or poor health. More than half of those households contain senior citizens,
who are more likely to be in fair or poor health than younger adults or children. Of households with
children, 6% include minors in fair or poor health.
About one-quarter (24%) of households include someone who used counseling or mental health
services in the year prior to taking the survey; a smaller proportion (12%) of senior-only households
have used these services. Eleven percent of households include a member with an intellectual or
physical disability, and 13% require assistance with housekeeping and home maintenance.
Preferences for Senior Housing and Social Services
Among Jewish adults aged 65 and older, 14% live in senior housing. Although no such facility exists
under Jewish auspices in the community, Jewish adults expressed significant interest in the prospect
of one. Among those currently living in senior housing, or with parents living in such a facility, 84%
said they would be a little or much more likely to use a Jewish-sponsored facility if one existed of
equal quality to other options. Among adults who did not currently have a need for senior housing,
79% said they would be a little or much more likely to use a Jewish-sponsored facility in the future
should one exist. It is not entirely clear, however, if such a high level of interest is an artifact of
respondents participating in a Jewish community survey or firm willingness to solicit the services of
a Jewish-sponsored facility should one be established. The community should proceed carefully
before committing to the establishment of a Jewish-sponsored facility.
There is a strong interest for social services provided by the Jewish community. Assuming equal
quality services, two-thirds (66%) of adults would be more likely to use services offered by a Jewish
organization (Table 13.1). Highly affiliated Jewish adults expressed stronger preference (78%) for
Jewish providers of social services than did unaffiliated adults (40%).37
81
82
Chapter 13: Health and Social Welfare
Table 13.1. Preference for Jewish or Non-Jewish Social Service Providers*
Overall
Much more likely to
use Jewish providers
A little more likely to
use Jewish providers
No preference
No involvement
Low
involvement
Moderate
involvement
High
involvement
35%
20%
32%
40%
51%
31%
20%
37%
34%
27%
33%
59%
31%
26%
21%
<1%
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
1%
A little less likely to use
<1%
1%
Jewish providers
A lot less likely to use
<1%
1%
Jewish providers
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only, n=839
Saving for College and Retirement
Although the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community is relatively affluent, even
financially secure households worry about saving for children’s college expenses and for their own
retirement. Parents with minor children were asked how confident they were saving for college, and
all adults were asked about saving for retirement (Table 13.2). A strong majority in both cases
reported feeling very or somewhat confident in being able to afford these expenses when the time
comes, though many are uncertain or not confident.
Table 13.2. Confidence about Savings
Confidence
For college (n=244)
For retirement (n=881)
Very confident
50%
29%
Somewhat confident
32%
44%
Uncertain
14%
20%
Not very confident
3%
3%
Not at all confident
2%
4%
Note: weighted estimates, Jewish respondents only
Wealth and Poverty
The community’s wealth is a source of strength, perceived as enabling philanthropy and providing
support to programs and institutions. However, members who are less wealthy feel that they are not
valued as highly (n=17) and that there is too much focus on asking for money.
Even though it has grown greatly over the last several decades and is more inclusive, there still seems to be an
atmosphere of not being as welcoming as it should be, especially towards those not in higher income
situations. Although more is being done to encourage people to be more active, I believe that leadership roles
are still heavily governed by the ability to donate money and not nearly as much on other commitments such
as time and skills.
The Federation, which is essentially a fundraising organization, relies on major donors for much of its
funding. Therefore, it cannot ignore their (mostly) more conservative stances on issues.
Chapter 13: Health and Social Welfare
Others feel that they are prevented from participating in Jewish life because of the high costs
(n=17).
Opportunities to meet new people without having to spend money to do so are few and far between.
I also think they need to do something with the high cost of being Jewish. For me and my partner spending a
thousand dollars on the JCC is difficult.
I think that they need to be aware that not everybody can afford a 250 dollar per plate per person. Not
everybody is in the six figure income bracket. Focus on the true middle class. Give some accommodation for
truly middle class working Jewish families.
And I wish the JCC made it possible for people on fixed incomes to attend various sessions without nonmember charges. The JCC should be a haven for all Jewish people regardless of ability to pay dues.
Economic Insecurity
Of greater concern, despite the community’s overall affluence, there are still members of the
community enduring significant financial stress. As shown in Figure 1.7 (see Demographics section),
15% of adults indicated that they were “just getting along” or poor or nearly poor. In addition, even
some individuals who reported that they were living reasonably comfortably expressed concern
about the affordability of college for their children and their ability to save for retirement.
One way to assess economic vulnerability other than standard of living, income, and ability to save is
to examine the kinds of public services received by respondents. One-third of households include a
member receiving Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare, but the vast majority of those
households (93%) include a member aged 65 or older. One-in-twelve households received some
other form of public benefit (Table 13.3), although the largest share (7%) received SSDI or SSI,
which are not definitive markers of poverty.
Table 13.3. Recipients of Public Benefits
Benefit
Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income (n=891)
7%
Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, or day care assistance (n=885)
2%
Home energy or utility assistance (n=888)
<1%
Unemployment benefits (n=885)
<1%
Any of these benefits (n=879)
Note: weighted estimates
8%
83
84
Chapter 13: Health and Social Welfare
Additionally, about one-tenth (11%) of households have had to cut back on basic needs in the past
year—including skipping or cutting the size of their meals, not getting a prescription filled for
medication, or missing at least one rent or mortgage payment—because of financial circumstances
(Table 13.4). The Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee may be affluent as a whole,
but a substantial proportion of the community is economically vulnerable and would benefit from
additional assistance.
Table 13.4. Basic Needs Ever Unmet in Past Year
Needs
Rent/mortgage payment missed (n=898)
6%
Prescription medications left unfilled (n=891)
5%
Meals skipped or reduced in size (n=895)
4%
Any of these necessities unmet (n=902)
11%
Note: weighted estimates
Chapter 14: In the Words of Community Members
Chapter 14. In the Words of Community Members
One of the goals of this study was to hear from members of the Jewish community of Nashville and
Middle Tennessee—in their own words—how their organizations are serving them well, where
challenges remain to be overcome, and what issues they would like the organized Jewish community
to raise on their behalf with the local government or school board. The findings in this section are
based largely on three open-ended questions asked at the end of the survey to address these issues:
-
What issues of Jewish interest, if any, would you like to see addressed by the local
government or school board in the next year?
Overall, what do you consider to be the strengths of the Nashville/Middle Tennessee Jewish
community?
In what ways do you think Nashville/Middle Tennessee Jewish programs, services, or
organizations should focus on improving their services?
Members of the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community highlight the size, cohesiveness,
and warmth of the community as among its strengths. The feature of the community that was noted
most often (n=100) was inter-synagogue cooperation. Yet there are Jews on the periphery who feel
excluded from the heart of the community. Those who live farther from Nashville, newcomers, and
those who are less prosperous appear to have the most trouble integrating into the mainstream of
the community.
Cohesiveness and Collaboration
Community members truly appreciate that all of the synagogues work together and collaborate in
programming and in welcoming nonmembers (n=100). One wrote, “I love that I attend [synagogue],
but know all of the other rabbis in town well enough to call them if I wanted to. I am comfortable in
every shul in town.”
Additional responses included:
I am impressed by how well and frequently the congregations and religious schools collaborate. For example,
each grade gets together for one program a year. The Get Connected program is another example of this
strength. This kind of collaboration encourages the community to attend multiple congregations and feel
more unified.
I think that it is amazing that we have religious congregations that mix, that we have rabbis that teach at each
other’s shuls, and that there is no drama. We are very fortunate to have such harmony and a growing
population.
Other members pointed to areas for improvement. One recommended improvements in
“[c]ommunication and working together. No need to reinvent the wheel. Share resources, share
programming, share fundraising, share the funds raised.” Another commented:
We used to be a much more cohesive community. Now, different factions have emerged on Israel and social
justice issues. Ideas not in conformity with those of the Jewish Federation are not welcome, but are more
common in the community. I think civil, healthy discussions outside the Federation have helped strengthen
our community.
85
86
Chapter 14: In the Words of Community Members
Warm and Caring
Members of the community speak highly of its welcoming nature (n=58). They remark on its
diversity in embracing “a wide range of expression, practice and belief.” One wrote:
The Nashville Jewish community has always been supportive, welcoming, and compassionate. When we
came here we were welcomed warmly, and we’ve always been treated well and with kindness. I have nothing
but gratitude for the Jewish community and Jewish organizations of Nashville. They help people who need it,
they're welcoming and inclusive for interfaith couples and families, and they have always made my wife and I
feel like a part of the community.
In particular, members indicated that the community was able to mobilize in times of crisis to take
care of its members (n=20). One felt a “wonderful outpouring of caring from the community after
my husband passed, and felt very loved and appreciated.” Another remarked “We got flooded five
years ago, and the community and organizations jumped right in there.”
Not Feeling Welcomed
For a variety of reasons, some community members have not experienced the community as
welcoming (n=37) and referred to it as “cliquey” (n=14). People felt excluded because they were
newcomers to the community, because their politics or religious practice differed from the
mainstream, or simply because little effort was made to integrate new people. One member
suggested that organizational leaders attempt to “make personal connections, remember our names,
ask if we’d like to be set up with other families for holidays.” Another remarked: “I do not see an
effort to bring newcomers into organizations, other than the young outreach person that the
Federation has hired.”
Some experienced discomfort within synagogues:
Synagogues are very cliquey; we do not seem to fit into any of the ‘groups’ that seem to form at the various
temples.
My current congregation caters to members of the community with status and money. Those of us who are
regular working people are ignored at services by the clergy. No greeting or nice to see you is ever given. We
are made to feel less by this treatment. We don’t attend services very often because of this.
I feel lonely when I go to my synagogue, because my family’s politics don’t match. Nashville Jews are very
accepting of Jews who belong to different movements and of Jews who are intermarried. But politically, we
can be pretty mean. Whenever I’ve gotten my feelings hurt about something that was said, I've made a point
of going back to services the next week so as not to let myself drift away. But I’m not going every week
anymore. I haven’t been in a few months, and it’s because I don’t know what table to sit at during kiddush.
It's like the high school lunchroom.
Encourage old time Nashvillians at my synagogue to listen to the opinions of ‘new blood’ in the community.
Things do not change there. They are done according to archaic tradition—orchestrated by a few old time
families, and can cause people to feel like the synagogue is not welcoming.
Chapter 14: In the Words of Community Members
Others remarked on this experience in the community at large.
Overall I have felt disconnected from the Jewish community since moving here, and it bothers me quite a lot.
I don’t know how to get connected or to find resources from a Jewish perspective. I imagine there must be
other Jews here, but I don’t know how to find them.
There’s a sense of the new Jews coming in versus the ones who’ve been here for a long time and the older
Southern Jews tend to be very clique-ish; JCC does a good job of eliminating some of that.
Concerns for Social Justice
Members of the community felt that that the organized Jewish community of Nashville and Middle
Tennessee should direct more of its attention to issues that face the community at large, including
poverty, homelessness, women’s issues, domestic violence, infrastructure, and public education
(n=28). One wrote:
I believe that the CRC should expand programming to include more Jewish involvement in social justice
issues affecting Nashville and the US as a whole. We are too focused on Israel and have let Tikkun Olam fall
by the wayside. The rest of Nashville doesn’t care how much the Jewish community loves Israel, it cares that
we show up when there are issues of racial violence, the school to prison pipeline, poverty, segregation, food
insecurity, reproductive rights, equal pay, fair wages, and the like. We need to show that we are not an insular
community and act like it.
Others were concerned about the quality of public education. Some favor vouchers to be used for
private schools, others would like more magnet schools, but others would like to improve public
school quality:
I would like for the quality of education provided by the Metro Nashville Public Schools to be on par with
that being delivered by private institutions in the community. Education is perhaps the most important value
we as Jews have, and we should demand that it be provided at a high level of quality to all of Nashville’s
citizens.
Community Needs
There are some segments of the community that believe currently extant programs and institutions
do not meet their needs. Specifically, interfaith families (n=6), adults without children (n=12),
working parents (n=4), and seniors/elderly (n=21) suggest improvements in programs and services.
Some of the issues concern the timing of programs, to make them convenient for working parents,
or accessibility, to make them convenient for seniors. Comments included:
I know that there are many single, unaffiliated Jews who feel alienated from the traditional family-focused
activities. It would be great if they could come up with SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to get us involved.
I think they could [do] more for middle-aged singles and solicit for mixers or something. A greater effort to
reach out to that population.
I would attend more events at the JCC if the parking was better, especially there is a need for more handicap
spaces. I think not enough thought goes into planning programs for seniors and disabled. Most of the good
programs are at night instead of the daytime when more seniors might take advantage of them.
87
88
Chapter 14: In the Words of Community Members
Seniors, in particular, noted the absence of a Jewish retirement or assisted living facility. One
wrote, “I think we need a Jewish retirement home here. A lot of Jewish people are retiring here
and have no Jewish place to go to—like in Memphis. We need a Jewish home here.”
Looking Toward the Future
Looking Toward the Future
The Jewish community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee has experienced slow but steady growth
over the past decade. Whether the trend will continue is an open question. Although there are
families who have lived in the community for many years—even generations—much of the
population is transient, with roughly similar numbers of people moving to and from the community
each year. Vanderbilt University, as a regional engine of the economy, is a strong force attracting
both young Jews seeking a place to study and more established, well-educated Jews looking for job
opportunities. People do not move to the community in search of Jewish life, but many appreciate
the variety of options for engagement available to them once they have arrived. Notably, many
newcomers from larger communities commented about the closeness and intimacy of the
community, while newcomers from smaller communities were impressed by the diversity of
institutions and programs and the significant resources available to sustain Jewish life. The Jewish
community of Nashville and Middle Tennessee is small but thriving.
The community is marked by its warmth and cohesiveness. Many respondents to the survey
remarked that community members are very friendly, accepting of people of different backgrounds,
and open to divergent points of view. Residents who have lived in Nashville and Middle Tennessee
for many years or who live in what some community members have called “the core of Metro
Nashville” tend to be well integrated into Jewish communal life and have easy access to the varied
options for participation. Community members praise the high degree of collaboration between all
congregations and their cooperation in offering programs to the entire community and not only
their members. The community has developed several programs that appeal to everyone, old and
young, religious and secular, families with young children and senior citizens alike. The Nashville
Jewish Film Festival and Hanukkah Festival (both GJCC programs) are particularly popular
throughout the Nashville and Middle Tennessee Jewish community.
The tightly knit bonds between community members also challenge the community. Newcomers
and people who live more distantly from the major institutions have more difficulty finding a
comfortable niche for themselves in the organized Jewish community. Many of these people are
interested in becoming more involved in the community if the right opportunity presents itself.
Efforts such as NowGen Nashville (a program of JFNMT), which has successfully engaged many
young adults in the community, can serve as a model for outreach to other underserved segments of
the population.
Like most small Jewish communities, Nashville and Middle Tennessee does not have the resources
to offer all programs and services that might be of interest. Setting priorities is critical to ensure that
all members of the community who wish to participate in Jewish life have avenues for engagement.
We recommend that the community focus on providing programs and services that meet the needs
of current members of the community rather than worrying about promoting growth; if external
conditions remain favorable and the community builds on its strengths and confronts its challenges,
it will continue to thrive.
Based on the responses of the 1,015 Jewish households of Nashville and Middle Tennessee who
completed the survey, we have identified several implications and recommendations about how the
community might use the data from this study to enhance local Jewish life.
89
90
Chapter 14: Looking Toward the Future
Continue promoting community-wide programming. Community-wide programs, whether
based in synagogues, the GJCC, JFNMT, or other institutions, provide venues for all members of
the community to participate in Jewish life regardless of background, observance, or affiliation.
These programs are a unifying force in the community, building bonds across all demographics and
expanding opportunities for involvement. Although synagogues are typically considered the center
of Jewish religious life, the congregations in Nashville and Middle Tennessee serve as true centers of
Jewish communal life—religious, cultural, social, and educational.
Use young adult programming as a model for engagement. Programming for young adults in
Nashville and Middle Tennessee has effectively engaged two segments of the population who are
often difficult to reach—young adults and newcomers to the community. By focusing on the
particular interests of the target demographic, NowGen Nashville, Hillel and Chabad at Vanderbilt,
and other programs catering to young adults have provided young adults with appropriate venues
for socializing, volunteering, and learning under the auspices of the Jewish community. Similar
efforts to provide interest-based programs to other demographics are likely to improve overall
community engagement.
Reach beyond the geographic core of the community. The Jewish population of Nashville and
Middle Tennessee and the community’s institutions are heavily concentrated in a narrow band
stretching southwest from the Vanderbilt campus to the border of Davidson and Williamson
Counties. Many Jewish families who live in the surrounding area do not have the same access or
opportunities to engage in Jewish communal life and feel their needs are not fully met. It may not be
possible or practical to build facilities in outlying areas, but offering programs, particularly in
Williamson and Rutherford Counties, can expand the reach of the community and provide better
service to a large segment of the population.
Strengthen ties beyond the Jewish community. Many members of the community advocate
good interfaith relations to make the Jewish community stronger. Jewish institutions and community
leaders are the public face of Jewish life in Nashville and Middle Tennessee. By building and
maintaining positive working relationships with other faith communities and the state and local
government, they can promote causes the Jewish community values such as separation of church
and state, support for Israel, high quality public education, and social welfare for all.
Be sensitive to differences of resources and backgrounds. The Jewish community of Nashville
and Middle Tennessee is proud of its openness to people from all walks of life and backgrounds, yet
there are some members of the community who have difficulty finding their place. Many
respondents believe there are financial barriers to full participation in the local Jewish community.
Others feel unwelcome because they feel their religious practice or political beliefs fall outside the
norm for the community. Newcomers to the community often struggle to break into long-standing
social circles and learn the history and traditions that characterize Nashville and Middle Tennessee.
To ensure the continued vibrancy of the community, it is essential to integrate newcomers and those
with diverse views.
These recommendations emerge from data systematically collected during the spring and summer of
2015. The study is part of a long tradition of using the tools of social science to assess the size,
character, interests, and concerns of a local Jewish community. It measures participation in
programs, institutional engagement, unmet needs, and many other aspects of Jewish life in Nashville
and Middle Tennessee. The community has invested many resources in improving programming,
Looking Toward the Future
reaching out to diverse populations, and building ties both within the Jewish community and outside
it. The data provided by this study should provide the framework for making strategic decisions
about the future of Jewish life in Nashville and Middle Tennessee.
91
92
Chapter 14: Looking Toward the Future
Notes
Notes
1
Pew Research Center, Religion & Public Life Project. (2013). A portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew
Research Center study of U.S. Jews. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Religion & Public Life Project.
2
Messianic Jews claim Jewish identity, but their claim is typically rejected by the vast majority of the Jewish
community. Respondents who identified as Messianic Jews in this study were treated as non-Jews.
3
Such findings are consistent with previous research on the way Jewish community size affects perceptions of the
community; see Boxer, M. (2013). Jewish identity on all frontiers: The effect of Jewish community size on Jewish
identity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Department of Sociology, Madison, WI.
4
In the context of this study, intermarriage, or interfaith marriage, refers to a marriage between one Jewish and
one non-Jewish partner.
5
For comparison, a population pyramid of the United States and other countries can be viewed at
http://populationpyramid.net/.
6
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
7
Although there are Jews of color, as noted below, the vast majority of Jews identify racially as white or Caucasian;
Pew reports that nationally 94% of Jews identify as non-Hispanic white. Accordingly, it is more accurate to
compare Jews to the white population rather than the entire population.
8
Natural increase is defined as the difference between the number of live births and the number of deaths during
a given time period. Relatively young populations tend to have positive natural increase (i.e., more live births than
deaths); relatively elderly populations tend to have negative natural increase (i.e., more deaths than live births).
9
All marriage-related analyses in this study depended on the respondent to identify his or her relationship to every
other person in the household. For purposes of this study, marriage includes cases where spouses, partner, or
fiancé/es are identified and living in the same household as the respondent.
10
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
11
Newport, F., & Gates, G.J. (2015, March 20). San Francisco metro area ranks highest in LGBT percentage. Press
release from Gallup. Accessed November 16, 2015, at http://www.gallup.com/poll/182051/san-francisco-metroarea-ranks-highest-lgbt-percentage.aspx.
12
A similar analysis limited to respondents aged 25 or older is nearly identical.
13
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
14
As previously noted, it is more accurate to compare Jews to the white population rather than the entire
population.
15
16
These figures are derived from the American Community Survey, 2014 data.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed December 15, 2015, at
http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm and http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000.
93
94
Notes
17
As previously noted, it is more accurate to compare Jews to the white population rather than the entire
population. However, because white householders tend to have significantly higher household incomes than other
households, comparing Jewish households to the entire population would reveal an even greater difference.
18
These figures are derived from the American Community Survey, 2013 five-year average data.
19
See Boxer, 2013.
20
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
21
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
22
See, for example, Roth, J. (2009). Jewish meditation practices for everyday life: Awakening your heart, connecting
with God. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.
23
Cheney, I. (Director). (2014). The search for General Tso [Film]. New York: Wicked Delicate Films.
24
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
25
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
26
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
27
It is well known that attempting to measure social phenomena can affect survey respondents. One respondent,
upon learning about PJ Library from the survey, told a CMJS researcher that she would look into signing her
children up immediately.
28
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
29
This cutoff point includes people who were 26 in 1999, when Birthright Israel ran its first trips. Because the age
of eligibility for the program has always been 18-26, the cutoff point ensured that anyone who had been to Israel
and was ever age-eligible for Birthright Israel was asked if they participated.
30
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
31
Roseman, J. (2010). Shalom Nashville: A Jewish history. Nashville: Eveready Press.
32
Pew Research Center, A portrait of Jewish Americans.
33
This respondent was referring to having been in Paris in 2014, not mid-November 2015, as the researchers were
writing this report, when a series of coordinated terrorist attacks resulted in 130 deaths in Paris.
34
See Saxe et al. (2015). Antisemitism and the college campus: Perceptions and realities. Waltham, MA: Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.
35 Two batteries of questions were asked about young adults in this study. One battery was answered by older
adults in the household, typically parents, whose young adult children live with them; the second battery was
answered by young adults who responded to the survey themselves. Parents provided information about their
adult children’s schooling, work, and reasons for living with parents. Questions about Jewish engagement and
attitudes were asked only of the young adults themselves.
Notes
36
This is consistent with a body of research demonstrating that Jewish young adults tend to be less connected to
Israel than their older counterparts, but that they will develop stronger connections over the life course. See, for
example, Sasson et al. (2012). Understanding young adult attachment to Israel: Period, lifecycle, and generational
dynamics. Contemporary Jewry, 32, 67-84.
37
It is curious that the proportion of respondents who would prefer to receive social services from a Jewish agency
is so high even among those who are not involved in the organized Jewish community. This may be an artifact of
respondents being asked their preferences on a Jewish community survey.
95