CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

American Jewish communal organizations regard themselves as key players in building and sustaining a sense of identity and community, and take pride in being a central facet of the American Jewish community. They have spent decades grappling with increased threats to their sustainability and survivability. The increased vulnerability of Jewish identity in the United States, rising levels of assimilation of the younger generation, and questions of the relevance of Jewish communal organizations to contemporary Jewish life have all affected the strategies, programs, and activities of these organizations for years. The involvement in communal organizations may have the positive effect of increasing and deepening the sense of identification of those who participate, but it is not clear how well-positioned these institutions are to bring more people into the fold or even to strengthen the bond with those who are already engaged.

Although there has been considerable research on how Jews view their religious and cultural identity, not enough attention has been paid to how Jews relate to the institutions and organizations that seek to strengthen this identity and sustain a vibrant Jewish community across the U.S. The study findings presented throughout this report aimed to fill this gap, first, by providing an understanding of how American Jews perceive communal organizations and interact with them; second, by identifying the obstacles to increasing involvement; and third, by suggesting potential paths for strengthening the bond between Jewish community organizations and their members.

Several findings stood out and seem meaningful for charting a path forward for communal institutions and engaged Jews. First, an analysis of Jews’ sense of shared fate provides some acknowledgment that a common bond exists despite everything. At the same time, although most Jews have some attachment to Israel, this connection is much weaker than what they feel toward fellow American Jews.

Second, our study suggests that, contrary to assumptions, Jews who belong to marginalized minority groups such as Jews with disabilities, Jews of color, and others were relatively less likely to see institutions as unwelcoming. In general, these potentially marginalized demographic groups are no more likely to feel excluded from communal institutions than the community as a whole. It is important to note, however, that the Jewish community places a premium on diversity, inclusion, and openness.

Third, the data clearly suggest that antisemitism is a major concern for U.S. Jews across the board. It is a higher concern for the more observant, older Jews, those with a higher identity index, and those who have personal experience of antisemitism. American Jews of all backgrounds share a concern over the rise in antisemitism in the U.S. Nevertheless, few are motivated by this concern to get more involved in community organizations.

Fourth, many Jews are disengaged by choice, and our findings show that even substantial intuitional changes may not be sufficient to stimulate their involvement.

Finally, when it comes to engagement, the time and resources Jews are willing to commit are decreasing. As our findings suggest, even the engaged Jews are most likely to be involved in activities that require less commitment or time, hinting at a change in patterns and types of engagement.

These findings and other details in this comprehensive report show that the main challenge for Jewish community institutions is not so much a negative perception, as a lack of a strong positive identity. This finding indicates that there is room for improvement and a strong need for it.

In addition, our study shows that Jewish identity does not necessarily require involvement in Jewish communal institutions, potentially undermining the fundraising and programming approaches adopted by many of these institutions for the past decades, and possibly requiring the adaptation to new perceptions of Jewish identity and its measurement.

The implications of our findings are significant for those who are engaged with communal institutions but feel less connected and even marginalized. In particular, smaller donors, Reform Jews, young Jews, and Jews of color who are engaged with communal institutions could be better positioned and included in the leadership and decision-making processes of these institutions. For Jews already engaged in Jewish organizations, diversity is key for sustaining their engagement and enhancing their future participation and financial commitment. Failure to welcome diversity may affect not only these groups but also the engagement of medium-size and large donors.

A place to start the change would be a new (or renewed) commitment to diversity and inclusion. This can be achieved by reaching out to underrepresented, minority communities such as LGBTQ Jews, Jews of color, and Jews with disabilities. But this commitment can also include efforts to reach out to younger Jews, smaller donors, and others who have felt disenfranchised.

Jewish institutions must also be mindful of the risks associated with politics and policy. This is not a new issue, but the survey results show that divisive political issues had a particularly harmful effect in the last five years. There is no easy way to fix this, and it may be impossible to avoid politics altogether. However, institutions wanting to engage with Jews more broadly must recognize that political leanings will affect the level with which their constituents choose to connect.