brandeis university...brandeis university maurice and marilyn cohen center for modern jewish studies...

Brandeis UniversityMaurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies

The Impact of Taglit-Birthright IsraelYoung Adults and Jewish Engagement:

Leonard SaxeShira FishmanMichelle Shain

Graham WrightShahar Hecht

November 2013

Young Adults and Jewish Engagement

© 2013 Brandeis University

Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies

Brandeis University

Mailstop 014

Waltham, MA 02454-9110

781.736.2060

www.brandeis.edu/cmjs

The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, founded in 1980, is

dedicated to providing independent, high quality research on issues related to

contemporary Jewish life.

The Cohen Center is also the home of the Steinhardt Social Research Institute (SSRI).

Established in 2005, SSRI uses innovative research methods to collect and analyze

socio-demographic data on the Jewish community.

ii Young Adults and Jewish Engagement

We gratefully acknowledge the support of Taglit-Birthright Israel, an organization that

considers independent research a critical element of its program development. We are

especially appreciative for the help of Taglit’s educational and research consultants,

Prof. Barry Chazan and Prof. Gil Troy. We also thank Taglit’s executive leadership:

Gidi Mark (CEO), Prof. Ada Spitzer (Vice President), and Dr. Zohar Raviv (Director of

Education). Appreciation is also expressed to the supporters of the Cohen Center for

Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University.

This project could not have been carried out without the assistance of our research team

at Brandeis University. We are appreciative and grateful for their efforts. Working

diligently to ensure the highest care going into our data collection was Natanya Cohen.

Calling supervisors Rachel Bernstein and Yves Bruno supervised many night and

weekend shifts and responded to various questions from respondents. Ben Lefebvre

offered technical support for the survey software and the survey management. Dina

Bleckman and Ellie Aitan were responsible for data coding. Theadora Fisher assisted

with data cleaning and initial analysis. We acknowledge Eitan Melchior, z"l, for his help

in the initial stages of the study. We miss him greatly.

We also thank our colleagues Prof. Charles Kadushin and Prof. Ted Sasson, who

provided critical review and insights. Deborah Grant and Joshua Davidson turned our

words and charts into a physical report. And none of this work would be possible

without the support of our colleagues, Masha Lokshin and Gloria Tessler, who manage

day-to-day operations.

Our team of telephone interviewers was critical to project implementation. We

acknowledge their work with appreciation. Callers included: Nihan Celiktas, Carmelle

Eloi, Nia Fogelman, Lauren Fox, Rachel Gordon, Rebecca Grossman, Yakov Israel,

Vicky Negus, Dara Rosenkrantz, Danielle Spencer, Daniel Shpolyansky, Shira Straus,

Alie Tawah, Annie Torres, and Kristina Yepez.

Our gratitude to reviewers of this report notwithstanding, the authors take full

responsibility for the design, conduct, and results of the study.

Acknowledgments

i Young Adults and Jewish Engagement

ii Young Adults and Jewish Engagement

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables..................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Study Population ...................................................................................................................... 9

Taglit’s Impact on Attitudes .................................................................................................. 13

Jewish Engagement on the College Campus ........................................................................ 15

Post-College Jewish Engagement.......................................................................................... 19

Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 25

Notes........................................................................................................................................ 27

References ............................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: Methodology .................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B: Attitudinal Impact of Taglit for Undergraduates and

Non-Undergraduates ....................................................................................................... 37

Appendix C: Tables ................................................................................................................ 47

iii Young Adults and Jewish Engagement

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Taglit applicants who were undergraduates at the time of application by

cohort .................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2: Age at time of survey by undergraduate status .................................................... 10

Figure 3: Most intense form of ritual practice during high school by undergraduate

status.................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 4: Most intense form of formal Jewish education by undergraduate status ............ 11

Figure 5: Jewish denomination raised by undergraduate status .......................................... 12

Figure 6: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation

(undergraduate and post-college) .................................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Importance of being Jewish and forming a Jewish family by Taglit

participation ...................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 8: Being invited to activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by

Taglit participation (undergraduates) .............................................................................. 15

Figure 9: Participating in activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by

Taglit participation (undergraduates) .............................................................................. 16

Figure 10: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (undergraduates) ......... 17

Figure 11: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (post-college) .............. 20

Figure 12: Donating to Jewish causes and volunteering under Jewish sponsorship by

Taglit participation (post-college) ................................................................................... 20

Figure 13: Engagement in Jewish religious life by Taglit participation (post-college) ..... 21

Figure 14: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by age group (Taglit participants)..................... 22

Figure 15: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)................ 22

Figure 16: Attending a NEXT Shabbat meal by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants).......... 23

1 Young Adults and Jewish Engagement

Executive Summary

The engagement of Jewish young adults

with their heritage and communal

institutions has been an ongoing concern of

the Jewish community. In North America, a

host of initiatives have been developed to

engage this population, the largest of which

is Taglit-Birthright Israel. Launched in 1999,

Taglit’s reach is striking. By 2013 more than

350,000 Jewish young adults from around

the world had participated in a 10-day

educational trip to Israel under the

program’s auspices.

A substantial body of prior evaluative

research documents the effects of the

program, in particular on participants’

attitudes toward Israel and Jewish life. When

compared to similar others who did not

participate, Taglit alumni are more likely to

feel a stronger connection to Israel and to

the worldwide Jewish community. They are

also more likely to consider it very

important for them to marry someone Jewish

and raise Jewish children. In the short-term,

the trip leads to modest behavioral changes,

particularly among college-aged

participants, who are more likely to engage

in Hillel activities and take classes focusing

on Israel or on Jewish subjects. In the long-

term, there is evidence that the program has

significant behavioral impact. Recent data

from studies of Taglit alumni who are now

(on average) over 30 years old, show that

participants, as compared to nonparticipants,

are more likely to be married to another Jew,

belong to synagogues, celebrate Shabbat,

and make charitable donations to Jewish or

Israeli causes.

The present study examines the short- and

moderate-term impact of Taglit. This

analysis focuses on the emerging young

adult experience—the period of time

immediately after the trips and the first few

years that follow. The study looks at the

effects of Taglit on participants, and in

particular, on their attitudes toward Jewish

life and participation in Jewish activities.

The present findings are based on data

collected in an online survey (spring 2011)

from a random stratified sample of

American Taglit applicants in the 2007-2010

cohorts (N=7,662).

Findings:

Six months to four years after the

program, Taglit participants felt more

connected to Israel and the Jewish

community than did nonparticipants.

Among all respondents, those with

stronger Jewish educational backgrounds

reported deeper feelings of connection to

Israel and Jewish life, while those who

were older reported weaker feelings of

connection. Controlling for the impact of

Jewish background and age, however,

participation in Taglit still had a

measurable impact on attitudes.

Most undergraduate respondents were

invited by at least one campus-based

Jewish organization to participate in its

activities; participants were more likely

than nonparticipants to have been invited

and to have participated in at least one


activity. Most post-college respondents

participated in at least one program

sponsored by a Jewish organization in

the year prior to the survey. Parties and

social gatherings were the most popular

activities. Taglit participants were

generally more likely to participate than

nonparticipants.

Among post-college respondents who

donated to any cause in the past year,

Taglit participants were more likely to

have donated at least some of their

money to a Jewish cause. Similarly,

among those who reported volunteering

in the past 12 months, Taglit participants

were more likely than nonparticipants to

have volunteered under Jewish auspices.

Despite low levels of engagement

overall, post-college Taglit participants,

as compared to nonparticipants, were

more likely to have had a special

Shabbat meal on the Friday night prior to

the survey, to be synagogue members,

and to have attended Jewish religious

services in the past month.

Forty-three percent of Taglit participants

had heard of NEXT Shabbat before

being asked about it in the survey.

Overall, 13 percent of Taglit participants

had attended a NEXT Shabbat meal,

either as a guest or a host, including six

percent having attended a NEXT

Shabbat meal more than once. About

half of all those who attended a NEXT

Shabbat meal had hosted a meal at least

once; the rest had been guests.

Consistent with previous research, the

present findings indicate that Taglit has a

robust impact on attitudes toward Israel and

the Jewish community, and a broad, but

modest, impact on engagement with Jewish

life. The level of engagement with Jewish

life among young adults, including

engagement with Taglit follow-up programs,

however, is relatively low. Given

participants’ expressed strong connection to

their Jewish identity, one might expect that

Jewish young adults, and Taglit alumni in

particular, would be more involved in

Jewish activities. But even when attitudes

and behaviors are aligned, there are

additional barriers to participation.

Taglit alumni have a heightened sense of

their Jewish identity and it seems likely, as

they come into full adult roles, that they will

be more highly involved than their peers

who did not have the experience. At the

same time, the likelihood that they will

participate will inevitably be mediated by

the ability of Jewish communal institutions

to serve their needs. The gap that currently

exists between Taglit alumni’s positive

attitudes and their actual behavior may only

be breached by institutions that are able to

adapt to the concerns and structural

constraints associated with emerging

adulthood. Exactly how this can be done is

beyond the scope of the present study. It is

clear, however, that those organizations that

are effective will address a desire for

community through the loose connective

structures most appropriate for this

population’s stage of life.


The engagement of Jewish young adults

with their heritage and Jewish institutions

has, over the last two decades, been a central

issue for the Jewish community (see, e.g.,

Cohen & Kelman, 2008; Kotler-Berkowitz,

et al., 2004). Concerned with assimilation

pressures and intermarriage, the Jewish

community has developed a number of

initiatives designed to bolster engagement

with Jewish life among Jewish young adults

and to foster connections with Israel. Taglit-

Birthright Israel is the largest of these

programs (Saxe & Chazan, 2008) and, since

its inception in 1999, has allowed more than

350,000 Jewish young adults from around

the world to visit Israel on 10-day

educational trips. More than two-thirds of

Taglit’s participants are from the largest

Jewish diaspora community, the United

States (Taglit-Birthright Israel, 2013).

Taglit, and in particular its North American

groups, has been the focus of an extensive

program of independent evaluative

research.1 Several dozen studies have now

been conducted with multiple cohorts of

Taglit applicants and participants to assess

the program’s impact. Typically, these

studies employ quasi-experimental designs

that compare participants and equivalent

nonparticipant applicants both pre- and post-

trip (see, e.g., Saxe, et al., 2004; Saxe,

Sasson, & Hecht, 2006). A variety of

measures have been used to assess the

program’s impact three months to nearly 12

years after participation in Taglit. Impact has

been assessed by focusing on participants’

attitudes and feelings about their Jewish

identity, Israel, and the Jewish community.

In addition, researchers have examined

behaviors related to Jewish life such as

participation in Jewish organizations on and

off campus, observance of Shabbat and

holidays, and giving to Jewish causes. Taglit

specifically targets young people in the stage

of life termed emerging adulthood (see

Arnett, 2004), a period characterized by

questioning, seeking, and developing one’s

identity.

Findings from evaluation research studies

regarding Taglit’s impact on attitudes have

been highly consistent across and within

cohorts over time. For example, multiple

studies have documented that when

participants are compared to similar others

who did not participate on the trip,

participants are more likely to feel a stronger

connection to Israel and to the worldwide

Jewish community (Saxe, Kadushin, Kelner,

Rosen, & Yereslove, 2002; Saxe, et al.,

2008; Saxe, Sasson, Phillips, Hecht, &

Wright, 2007). Other studies have provided

evidence that these differences persist over

time, from one to three years after the trip

(Saxe, et al., 2004; Saxe, et al., 2006) and

even five to 11 years after the trip (Saxe, et

al., 2009; Saxe, Sasson, et al., 2011; Saxe, et

al., 2012). Evaluation studies also indicate

that participants are more likely to report a

stronger commitment to Jewish continuity.

In both the short and the long term,

participants are more likely to state that it is

very important to them to marry someone

Jewish and to raise their children Jewish

(Saxe, et al., 2004; Saxe, et al., 2002; Saxe,

et al., 2008; Saxe, et al., 2009; Saxe, et al.,

2006; Saxe, Sasson, et al., 2011; Saxe, et al.,

2012).

Introduction


Although evidence of changes in attitudes

regarding connection to Israel and toward

Jewish life suggests fairly dramatic program

impact, the evidence of change in behavior,

as a result of participation in Taglit, has been

more modest. The findings, however,

interact with age and the developmental

stage of the participant. Thus, among

participants who are undergraduate college

students, there is evidence that Taglit

increases engagement with Hillel (Saxe, et

al., 2008) and leads to increases in the

likelihood of taking Israel or Jewish Studies

courses (Saxe, et al., 2002). At the same

time, for post-college students, there is not

much evidence of behavioral change (Saxe,

et al., 2008; Saxe, et al., 2007). In a 2009

study, many post-college Taglit alumni

describe Jewish life in their communities as

inaccessible and unappealing (Chertok,

Sasson, & Saxe, 2009). But it is not clear to

what extent the findings are a function of the

lack of opportunities for this age group.

Recently, however, as large numbers of

participants from the early years of the

program assume full adult roles, it has been

possible to explore Taglit’s impact on a

wider variety of potential behavioral

measures: marriage, childrearing, and adult

engagement with the Jewish community.

Since 2009, four waves of a longitudinal

study, with a panel of more than 3,000

individuals who applied to Taglit between

2001 and 2006, have been conducted in

order to track Jewish engagement as a

function of Taglit. The findings indicate

substantial program impact. Taglit

participants, as compared to nonparticipants,

are more likely to be married to another Jew,

be synagogue members, celebrate Shabbat,

and make charitable donations to Jewish or

Israeli organizations or causes (Saxe, 2013;

Saxe, et al., 2009; Saxe, Sasson, et al., 2011;

Saxe, et al., 2012). Thus, the evidence

indicates that over time Taglit has been

successful in strengthening Jewish identity,

as well as the likelihood of Jewish family

formation and participation in Jewish life.

The findings indicate that the program is

effective for participants with a variety of

Jewish backgrounds (i.e., participants with

no formal Jewish education, those with

several years of Jewish supplementary

schooling, and even those with day school

experience).

Two issues underlie the present research.

The first question looks at whether the

effects of Taglit observed in previous studies

are evident in recent cohorts. Taglit has

expanded over time and, since 2008, the

number of participants has doubled. In

addition, the characteristics of the applicant

pool have changed compared to its first eight

years. Whereas the majority of Taglit

participants in the 2001-2004 cohorts were

ages 21 or younger (Saxe, et al., 2009), by

summer 2008, the majority of participants

were ages 22 or older (Saxe, et al., 2008).

There has also been an increase in the

proportion of participants with little or no

Jewish background. In the 2001-2004

cohorts, 37 percent of participants kept

kosher at home during high school (Saxe, et

al., 2009), whereas only 13 percent of the

summer 2008 cohort did so (Saxe, et al.,

2008). Thus, the report examines the

patterns of attitude change and the levels of

Jewish engagement among recent Taglit

cohorts.

The second question addresses Jewish

engagement among Taglit applicants in their

emerging adulthood years—a period of time

when most of these young adults are not in a

secure job or professional role, are highly

mobile, and are in the process of developing

the social networks that will stabilize only

later in life (Arnett, 2004). Specifically, the


analysis focuses on Taglit’s role in these

young adults’ Jewish lives and on its ability

to impact Jewish engagement immediately

after the trip and the first few years that

follow. Although there is unequivocal

evidence of Taglit’s impact on the attitudes

of participants of diverse Jewish

backgrounds, the trajectory of Jewish

involvement is somewhat puzzling. Upon

immediate return, strong attitudinal changes

are not matched by participants’ levels of

engagement with the community. Yet,

substantial change over the long term (up to

a decade or more after participation in

Taglit) has been documented, in particular,

in terms of marital decision-making.

The findings described in the present study

derive from data collected in a survey of the

cohorts that applied to the program between

2007 and 2010. The analyses presented

serve to help us better understand what

Jewish involvement looks like at this

particular developmental stage and the ways

in which Jewish engagement evolves over

time. Thus, in addition to examining overall

levels of Jewish engagement, the report

examines how Jewish involvement

manifests itself in early young adulthood,

both among those in college and those post-

college. Finally, this study reviews the

impact of recent efforts to engage Taglit

alumni.


The present analyses focus on data collected

in an online survey of eligible North

American applicants to the winter 2006-07

through summer 2010 Taglit trips. A

stratified random sample of 67,400 eligible

applicants was invited to participate in an

online survey that was in the field during

spring 2011. Survey respondents completed

the survey six months to four years after

they applied for the trips. A random group

(N=3,000) was selected for intensive phone

follow-up in order to account for any bias

due to non-response. The relatively low

response rate in the overall sample did not

appear to contribute to significant non-

response bias. This finding is based on an

analysis comparing the overall sample to the

special follow-up sample which achieved a

much higher response rate.2 The response

rate for the intensive follow-up sample was

48 percent (53 percent for participants, 40

percent for nonparticipants), while the

overall response rate was 11 percent (12

percent for participants, 10 percent for non-

participants. For the purposes of this report,

analysis was limited to respondents who

resided in the United States at the time of the

survey. Full details of sample selection and

survey administration are presented in

Appendix A.

The analytic paradigm of this study

compares Taglit participants to similar

others who applied to the program but did

not go. Comparisons are valid if there are no

known pre-existing differences between

participants and nonparticipants or, in the

event that there are differences that might

affect outcomes, the differences can be

accounted for statistically. Historically,

assignment to the program was practically

random (Saxe, et al., 2008), but this changed

in recent years. Beginning in winter 2008-

09, Taglit implemented a pre-registration

system in order to give preference to

applicants who had applied to the trip

before. Preference is also given to older

applicants who will age out of the program.

The central findings presented in this report,

therefore, use logistic regression (either

binary, ordinal, or multinomial, depending

on the nature of the dependent variable) to

control for factors that are related to

participation in Taglit: age, Jewish

background,3 and, for non-undergraduates,

engagement with Jewish organizations in

college (e.g., Hillel). By controlling for

these factors, the impact of Taglit

participation can be isolated from factors

associated with being selected to participate.

The figures presented are based on predicted

probabilities derived from the regression

models, holding the control variables at their

mean values.

Method


Study Population

Undergraduates versus Others

Forty-seven percent of Taglit participants in

the current sample went on the program

while they were undergraduates. The

proportion of Taglit participants who were

undergraduates declined in both winter and

summer trips over the four years of the study

period (Figure 1). This was most dramatic

for the summer trips, where the proportion

of undergraduates declined by one-third

from summer 2007 to summer 2010, from

47 percent to only 31 percent.

The pattern of decreasing participation by

undergraduates means that fewer Taglit

participants return to college campuses after

their trips. Because post-college alumni face

a very different set of opportunities for

Jewish engagement than undergraduate

alumni, this shift in the makeup of

participants is critical to understanding the

impact of Taglit on post-trip Jewish

engagement. At the time of the survey, one-

quarter (24 percent) of respondents were

undergraduates, while three-quarters (76

percent) were not.4

Demographic and Jewish Background

Characteristics

Age and gender - Most undergraduate

respondents were between 20 and 22 years

old at the time of the survey, whereas most

post-college respondents were in their mid-

twenties (Figure 2). Women were slightly

overrepresented in the population: 54

percent of undergraduates and 57 percent of

post-college respondents were female.

60%

47%

57%

40%48%

44%

55%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Winter

2006-07

Summer

2007

Winter

2007-08

Summer

2008

Winter

2008-09

Summer

2009

Winter

2009-10

Summer

2010

Figure 1: Taglit applicants who were undergraduates at the time of application by cohort*

* Estimated proportions.


Family Jewish ritual practice during high

school - Undergraduate and post-college

respondents did not differ dramatically on

measures of Jewish background. Close to

half of the respondents reported that during

their high school years their families

celebrated both Hanukkah and Passover.

About one in five reported that their families

also regularly lit Shabbat candles.

Undergraduates were more likely to come

from families that kept kosher at home (23

percent vs. 16 percent for non-

undergraduates) (Figure 3).

16%23%

19%

19%

47%

47%

12%8%

6% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Non-undergraduates Undergraduates

None

Hannukkah

Seder

Shabbat

Kosher

Figure 2: Age at time of survey by undergraduate status*

Figure 3: Most intense form of ritual practice during high school by undergraduate status*


0% 1% 2%

12%

16%14% 12% 11% 11% 10%

7%2%

0%4%

19%

40%

24%

6%2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Non-undergraduates

Undergraduates



Formal Jewish education growing up -

Respondents had varying levels of formal

Jewish education (Figure 4). About one-fifth

had no formal Jewish education, while

another fifth attended full-time Jewish day

schools. The rest of the respondents had

some supplemental Jewish education, such

as Hebrew school or Sunday school. While

undergraduates and non-graduates were

similar in their Jewish education levels,

undergraduates were more likely to have

attended Jewish day school.

Parents’ religion - Almost three-quarters of

respondents had two Jewish parents (73

percent of undergraduates and 71 percent of

post-college respondents).

Jewish denomination - A plurality of

respondents (36 percent of both

undergraduates and post-college

respondents) were raised Reform or

Reconstructionist, and one-quarter were

raised Conservative (25 percent of both

undergraduates and post-college

respondents). Another quarter of

respondents were raised secular/culturally

Jewish or “Just Jewish” (27 percent of

undergraduates and 24 percent of post-

college respondents). A small number of

respondents were raised Orthodox (eight

percent of undergraduates and four percent

of post-college respondents), and the rest

were raised no religion or something else

(Figure 5).

Jewish background index - The analyses

presented in this report control for a single

index of “childhood Jewish background,”

which combines the different measures of

Jewish background reported above: formal

Jewish education, high school ritual practice,

parental inmarriage, and being raised

Orthodox.5

15%20%

63%

63%

22%17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No formal Jewish education

No day school, but some

supplementary Jewish education

Some day school

Figure 4: Most intense form of formal Jewish education by undergraduate status*



Figure 5: Jewish denomination raised by undergraduate status*


4%8%

25%

25%

36%

36%

27%24%

5% 5%3% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Other

No religion

Secular/culturally Jewish, Just

Jewish

Reform, Reconstructionist

Conservative

Orthodox


Taglit’s Impact on Attitudes

Consistent with previous research,

participation in Taglit has an impact on

attitudes associated with Israel and the

Jewish community. Indeed, participants

from the 2007-2010 Taglit cohorts again

demonstrate stronger feelings of connection

to Israel and the Jewish community than

nonparticipants (Figure 6). Among

participants and nonparticipants, Jewish

background was naturally associated with

stronger feelings of connection, and age was

associated with weaker feelings of

connection. However, controlling for the

impact of Jewish background and age, Taglit

still had a measurable impact on

participants. Taglit’s greatest impact is

observed on connection to Israel, where

participants were 2.5 times as likely to feel

“very much” connected to Israel. Higher

levels of connection to the worldwide

Jewish community, to the local Jewish

community, and to Jewish peers were

observed among participants, but the effect

size was smaller. Taglit’s impact on attitudes

presented here does not distinguish between

college and post-college respondents

because Taglit’s impact is very similar for

both groups.6

Figure 6: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (undergraduate and post-college)*

* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.

14%

35%

23%

31%

13%17%

26%33%

31%

37%

36%

37%

27%

30%

39%

39%

42%

23%

32%

25%

32%

30%

28%

22%

13%

4%10% 6%

28%23%

7% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants

Connection to Israel Part of a worldwide Jewishcommunity

Part of local Jewish community Connected to Jewish peers

Very much Somewhat A little Not at all


Taglit participants were more likely to rate

“being Jewish” as “very much” important to

their lives, relative to nonparticipants,

suggesting the salience of Judaism to their

identity. They also demonstrated a stronger

desire to form a Jewish family (Figure 7).

Participants were 40 percent more likely to

say that marrying someone Jewish was very

important to them and 27 percent more

likely to say that raising their children

Jewish was very important to them. These

attitudes may eventually translate into

behavior. Long-term follow-up research has

documented that between six and 11 years

after the trip Taglit participants are

significantly more likely to be married to a

Jew as compared to nonparticipants (Saxe, et

al., 2009; Saxe, Phillips, et al., 2011; Saxe,

Sasson, et al., 2011; Saxe, et al., 2012).

25%

35%

49%

62%

43%

54%

28%

29%

26%

22%

33%

29%

23%

19%

16%

11%19%

14%25%

17%

8%5% 5% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants

Marry someone Jewish** Raise children Jewish*** Being Jewish

Very important Somewhat important A little important Not important

Figure 7: Importance of being Jewish and forming a Jewish family by Taglit participation*

* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age. ** Excludes the seven percent respondents who are currently married.

*** Excludes the eight percent of respondents who have children.


Jewish Engagement on the College Campus

Twenty-four percent of respondents were

undergraduates at the time of the survey.

The majority (85 percent) went on the trip

during their college years. Just as Jewish

background and being younger were

associated with more positive Jewish

attitudes, these two factors were also

associated with increased Jewish

engagement for undergraduates. Controlling

for the impact of Jewish background and

age, Taglit had a small but consistent impact

on participants’ engagement with campus-

based Jewish groups such as Hillel, as well

as on participation in a wide variety of

Jewish activities.

Campus-Based Jewish Groups

Undergraduate respondents were asked

whether they had been invited to activities

sponsored by Hillel, Chabad-Lubavitch, a

Jewish fraternity or sorority (e.g., AEPi), or

another campus-based Jewish group in the

past 12 months. They were then asked

whether they actually engaged in any such

activities. Overall, most respondents (85

percent) were invited by at least one

campus-based organization to participate in

its activities. However, Taglit participants

were significantly more likely to be invited

by these groups (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Being invited to activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by Taglit

participation (undergraduates)*

* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.

52%

73%

34%43%

25%32%

11%18%

13%

11%

9%

11%

13%

14%

4%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No

npart

icip

ants

Par

ticip

ants

No

npart

icip

ants

Par

ticip

ants

No

npart

icip

ants

Par

ticip

ants

No

npart

icip

ants

Par

ticip

ants

Hillel Chabad Jewish fraternity or

sorority

Other campus-based

Jewish group

Once or twice

3 or more times


The majority of respondents (67 percent)

also participated in at least one activity

sponsored by a campus-based Jewish group

in the past 12 months. Taglit participants

were more likely than nonparticipants to

participate in activities sponsored by these

organizations (Figure 9). Those who were

invited by a campus Jewish group to

participate in activities were also much more

likely to participate in those activities than

those who were not invited. Additional

analysis not presented here suggests that

Taglit participants’ greater likelihood of

participating in Jewish activities on campus

is largely, perhaps even exclusively, due to

their greater likelihood of receiving an

invitation. Among those who were not

invited, Taglit participants were no more

likely to participate than nonparticipants.

Participation in Activities sponsored by

Jewish Organizations

To gauge the types of activities offered by

Jewish organizations on campus that are

most popular and well attended, survey

respondents were asked whether they had

engaged in particular activities with Jewish

content or Jewish sponsorship including: (1)

a party, happy hour, or social gathering; (2)

a lecture, speaker, or class; (3) a cultural

event, such as a concert of film screening;

Figure 9: Participating in activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by Taglit

participation (undergraduates)*

18%

38%

13%17%

13%17%

4%8%

24%

21%

13%

14%

12%

15%

3%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants Nonparticipants Participants

Hillel Chabad Jewish fraternity or sorority Other campus-based Jewishgroup

Once or twice

3 or more times

* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.


Figure 10: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (undergraduates)*

* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish

engagement in college.

(4) a social justice/activism event or activity;

or (5) another type of event or activity. The

majority of undergraduate respondents (69

percent) had participated in at least one

activity in the past twelve months. The most

popular type of activities were parties and

social gatherings sponsored by Jewish

organizations, attracting about half of

undergraduate respondents at least once in

the 12 months prior to the survey. In

general, Taglit participants were likely to

attend these activities with greater frequency

compared to nonparticipants (Figure 10).

29%

42%

22%

34%

14%

27%

10%

20%

7%12%

21%

19%

17%

20%

19%

21%

10%

14%

3%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%N

onpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Party, happy hour, orsocial gathering

Lecture, speaker, orclass

Cultural event Social justice / activismevent or activity

Another type of activity

Once

More than once


This section explores the Jewish engagement

of the 76 percent of respondents who were

not undergraduates at the time they were

surveyed.7 Removed from the campus

community, Jewish young adults face a

different landscape of Jewish opportunities.

Many Jewish organizations and

congregations cater their services and

programming to families with young

children (Sheskin & Kotler-Berkowitz,

2007). While there has been recent

investment in programming for single

Jewish young adults, many barriers to

engagement remain, including difficulties in

finding opportunities and issues of cultural

fit (Chertok, et al., 2009; Cohen & Kelman,

2007).

Below, Taglit’s impact on Jewish

involvement is examined, focusing on

participation in activities sponsored by

Jewish organizations, Jewish congregational

membership, attendance at religious

services, Shabbat and holiday observances,

giving to Jewish causes, and volunteering

under Jewish sponsorship. Not surprisingly,

Jewish background and engagement with

campus Jewish life during college were

positive predictors of Jewish engagement for

post-college respondents, while age had an

inconsistent effect. Controlling for the

impact of Jewish background, college

Jewish engagement, and age, Taglit was a

predictor of increased Jewish engagement

across a number of measures. The end of

this section examines the role of the largest

initiative targeting post-college Taglit

alumni—NEXT Shabbat—in facilitating

Jewish engagement.

Participation in Jewish Activities

Whereas almost 70 percent of

undergraduates participated in at least one

activity sponsored by a Jewish organization

in the year prior to the survey, only half of

post-college respondents did so. As with

undergraduates, among post-college

respondents, the most popular of these

activities were parties and social events

(around 40 percent of respondents reported

having participated in such activities in the

past 12 months). Taglit participants were

generally more likely to participate in

Jewish-sponsored activities than

nonparticipants (Figure 11). While the

differences are not large, they are

statistically significant.

Giving and Volunteering

Respondents were asked whether, in the year

prior to the survey, they had made any

charitable contributions or engaged in any

volunteer activities. Among those who

donated to any cause in the past year, Taglit

participants were more likely to have

donated at least some of their money to a

Jewish cause (Figure 12). Similarly, among

those who reported volunteering in the past

12 months, Taglit participants were more

likely than nonparticipants to have

volunteered under Jewish auspices (Figure

12).8

Jewish Religious Engagement

Post-college Taglit participants were

somewhat more likely to engage in Jewish

Post-College Jewish Engagement


Figure 12: Donating to Jewish causes and volunteering under Jewish sponsorship by Taglit

participation (post-college)*

* Predicted probabilities from binary logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish engagement

in college.

** Limited to respondents who made any charitable contributions.

*** Limited to respondents who engaged in any volunteer activities.

* Predicted probabilities from multinomial logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish

engagement in college.

Figure 11: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (post-college)*

17%24%

12% 17%9% 13%

4% 8% 5% 6%

16%

18%

11%13%

14%15%

9%8%

4% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%N

onpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Nonpa

rtic

ipan

ts

Part

icip

ants

Party, happy hour orsocial gathering

Lecture, speaker orclass

Cultural event Social justice / activismevent or activity

Another type of activity

Once

More than once

21%14%

27%20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Donated to Jewish or Israeli organizations or

causes**

Volunteered under Jewish sponsorship***

Nonparticipants

Participants


religious life than nonparticipants.

Participants were significantly more likely to

have had a special Shabbat meal on the

Friday night before taking the survey, to be

synagogue members, and to have attended

Jewish religious services in the past month

(Figure 13). On the other had, Taglit

participants were not significantly more

likely to have attended a Passover seder in

the previous year.

NEXT Shabbat

NEXT Shabbat is a national program that

endeavors to boost the Jewish engagement

of post-college age Taglit alumni.9 The

program provides monetary reimbursement

and educational resources for Taglit

participants who invite friends into their

homes for a Shabbat meal. Launched in July

2008, NEXT Shabbat has a low threshold

for involvement—traditional Shabbat rituals

and kosher food are not required, and guests

do not have to be Jewish. Shabbat meals can

happen anywhere in the United States,

allowing for broad participation around the

country. This section of the report will

describe the level and patterns of

participation in NEXT Shabbat among

Taglit participants. While NEXT is targeted

specifically at post-college Taglit alumni,

undergraduates appear to be aware of and

participate in NEXT at roughly the same rate

as non-undergraduates. Consequently, the

analyses below will include Taglit

participants from both groups.

Awareness of NEXT Shabbat

Overall, 43 percent of Taglit participants had

heard of NEXT Shabbat before being asked

about it in the survey. Those participants

ages 25 and older were somewhat more

likely to have heard of the program than

younger participants (Figure 14). In

addition, those who went on a Taglit trip in

14%22% 25%

18%

27%32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had special Shabbat meal last

Friday night

Synagogue member Attended Jewish religious services

in past month

Nonparticipants

Participants

Figure 13: Engagement in Jewish religious life by Taglit participation (post-college)*

* Predicted probabilities from binary logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish engagement

in college


43%38%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Age 18-21 Age 22-24 Age 25+

32% 31% 33%

44%

58% 57% 57% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Winter

2006-07

Summer

2007

Winter

2007-08

Summer

2008

Winter

2008-09

Summer

2009

Winter

2009-10

Summer

2010



Figure 14: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by age group (Taglit participants)*

Figure 15: Awareness of NEXT Shabbat by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)*


2009 or 2010 were more likely to have heard

of the program than those who went on the

trip in 2007 or 2008 (Figure 15). Analyzing

multiple factors that impact awareness of the

program reveals that in addition to being

older and having gone on a trip after 2008,

women and those with more intense Jewish

backgrounds were also more likely to have

heard of the program.

Participation in NEXT Shabbat

Taglit participants who had heard of NEXT

Shabbat were asked how many times in the

past 12 months they had hosted or been a

guest at a NEXT Shabbat meal. Overall, 13

percent of Taglit participants had attended a

NEXT Shabbat meal, either as a guest or a

host, with six percent having attended a

NEXT Shabbat meal more than once. About

half of all those who attended a NEXT

Shabbat meal had also hosted a meal at least

once; the rest had been guests.

The time elapsed since a participant’s Taglit

trip is associated with the likelihood of

attending a NEXT Shabbat meal. Those who

went on a Taglit trip in 2009 or 2010 were

significantly more likely to have attended a

NEXT Shabbat meal in the past 12 months

than those who went in 2007 or 2008

(Figure 16).

A binary logistic regression model of NEXT

participation indicates that several factors

are associated with participation in NEXT

Shabbat meal. As shown in Figure 16, those

who went on the trip in 2009 or 2010 were

more likely to have attended a NEXT

Shabbat meal. In addition, older Taglit

participants and women were somewhat

more likely to have attended. Those with

more intense Jewish backgrounds were

neither more nor less likely to attend a

meal.10

Figure 16: Attending a NEXT Shabbat meal by Taglit cohort (Taglit participants)*

5% 4% 4% 5% 9% 8% 10% 8%

7%5% 6% 5%

10% 9%12%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Winter

2006-07

Summer

2007

Winter

2007-08

Summer

2008

Winter

2008-09

Summer

2009

Winter

2009-10

Summer

2010

Attended or hosted more than once

Attended or hosted once

* Estimated proportions


Discussion

The present findings document Taglit’s

impact on participants’ Jewish identities and

Jewish engagement post-trip. Consistent

with studies of earlier Taglit cohorts, the

present study—conducted up to three and

half years after participation in Taglit—

demonstrates the program’s strong effects on

participants’ attitudes toward their Jewish

identity. Participants who took part in a

Taglit trip between 2007 and 2010 reported

greater feelings of connection to Israel and

the Jewish community as compared to

nonparticipants and a stronger desire to

marry someone Jewish and raise Jewish

children. Thus, the program continues to

produce positive attitudinal changes among

participants even as the program has evolved

and matured and the applicant pool has

changed.

The findings also shed light on the levels of

behavioral engagement with Jewish life both

on and off the college campus. More than

two-thirds of undergraduate Taglit

applicants were involved in some way in

Jewish life on campus in the year prior to the

survey. Respondents reported participating

in a variety of organizations and activities on

campus; Hillel was the most cited campus

organization and social gatherings were the

most popular activity. Although the overall

rates indicate that the majority do not attend

these events with much frequency, Taglit

has a significant impact on participation in

the organizations and activities. Taglit’s

impact on campus is related to the fact that

participation on trips makes alumni more

visible to Jewish organizations. These

organizations often partner with Taglit,

which allows them to more effectively reach

out to their target population. Taglit

participants were much more likely to be

invited to events and were also far more

likely to participate.

Among post-college respondents, overall

levels of engagement were significantly

lower than those among the undergraduate

respondents. Taglit, nevertheless, had a

small yet significant impact on participants,

with post-college participants being more

likely to attend Jewish events, donate to or

volunteer with Jewish organizations, have

Shabbat meals, join synagogues, and even

attend religious services. The analyses used

to assess Taglit’s impact in these areas also

indicated that prior experience with Jewish

life on the college campus was a strong

predictor of engagement post college.

Insofar as Taglit increases opportunities for

engagement in Jewish life on campus, it will

indirectly impact Jewish engagement later

on. To the extent that the majority of current

Taglit participants are past their college

experience, Taglit may have a lower impact

on engagement.

Overall levels of engagement in the flagship

program of alumni follow-up, NEXT

Shabbat, are also low, but in line with the

overall rates of involvement in Jewish life

among post-college young adults. Despite

the low barriers for participation in the

program and the relatively high name

recognition of the program (more than a

third had heard of it), participation rates are

between 16 to 22 percent.

Given participants’ expressed strong

connection to their Jewish identity, one

might expect that Jewish young adults, and

Taglit alumni in particular, would be more


involved in Jewish activities. Although

Taglit has consistent positive effects, on

most measures, the proportion of

participants who are engaged is less than a

majority. Some have argued that

engagement of Jewish young adults should

be measured “outside the box” of

mainstream Jewish institutions (Cohen &

Kelman, 2007; Kaunfer, 2010). However,

even when considering innovative Jewish

initiatives and non-institutionalized Jewish

practice, the level of Jewish engagement for

Taglit alumni, as well as the current

generation of which they are a part, is low

(Shain, Fishman, Wright, Hecht, & Saxe, in

press). To understand the findings, one

needs to appreciate the relationship between

Jewish identity and behavioral engagement.

The psychological literature is rich with

discussion of the reasons why attitudes do

not always predict behavior. From this

perspective, a global measure of Jewish

identity (e.g., how connected one feels to the

Jewish community) needs not be strongly

related to actual involvement (i.e., whether

one participates in activities or local Jewish

institutions). The strength of the attitude-

behavior relationship depends on the degree

of correspondence (or compatibility)

between the attitudes and the behaviors

(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Kim & Hunter,

1993; Kraus, 1995). Thus, young adults may

have strong feelings about being Jewish, but

they may not be in a stage of life in which

formal synagogue membership or other

forms of institutional connection make

sense. In addition, real-world situations and

opportunities hinder or facilitate individuals’

ability to actualize their attitudes in the form

of specific behaviors. Engagement not only

requires individual motivation, but also time,

resources, and opportunity structures.

Some of the issues that lead to a disconnect

between individuals’ Jewish identity and

their involvement with the community may

be associated with the unsettled nature of

emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004). Most of

these young adults do not have a secure job

or professional role; as well, they are highly

mobile and in the process of developing the

social networks that will stabilize only later

in life. This suggests that opportunity

structures for Jewish engagement must be

developed that are fluid and meet

individuals on their own terms (Chertok, et

al., 2009).

Taglit alumni have a heightened sense of

their Jewish identity and it seems likely, as

they come into full adult roles, that they will

be more highly involved than their peers

who did not have the experience. At the

same time, the likelihood that they will

participate in Jewish life will inevitably be

mediated by the ability of Jewish communal

institutions to serve their needs. The gap that

currently exists between Taglit alumni’s

positive attitudes and their actual behavior

may only be breached by institutions that are

able to adapt to the concerns and structural

constraints associated with emerging

adulthood. Exactly how this can be done is

beyond the scope of the present study. It is

clear, however, that the most effective

organizations will be the ones which address

a desire for community through the loose

connective structures most appropriate for

this population’s stage of life.


Notes

1For a comprehensive list of publications based on findings from the extensive research on Taglit, see: http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/researchareas/taglit-publications.html. 2See Appendix A and a detailed analysis in Wright, Fisher, & Saxe, 2012. 3The models used in these reports control for a single index of “childhood Jewish background” which combines the different measures of Jewish engagement reported below, namely: formal Jewish education, high school ritual practice, parental inmarriage, and being raised Orthodox. For details of scale construction, see page 12 and Note 5. 4Among those Taglit participants who were not undergraduates at the time of survey, there was no substantive difference across the various measures of engagement between those who went on Taglit during college and those who went after graduating. 5Because these four variables have different scales of measurement, they could not simply be averaged or added together. The Jewish background index therefore added each variable’s standard score (“z-score”), which standardizes the mean of each variable at zero and recodes the values of that variable to reflect the standard deviation away from that mean. Loevinger H scalability coefficients were used to determine the optimal scale composition. The Loevinger H coefficient for the adopted scale was 0.64.

6For an analysis of college and post-college respondents see Appendix B. 7The vast majority (93 percent) of non-undergraduates have bachelor’s degrees. This section also includes a small number of individuals who never attended or never completed college. 8Taglit participants and nonparticipants were equally likely to have done any volunteer activities; each had a 67 percent probability of having volunteered (F test, etc.). Taglit is negatively associated with having made any charitable contributions; participants had a 66 percent probability of having donated, compared to a 72 percent probability for nonparticipants (F test, etc.).

9Canadian alumni are also eligible to participate in NEXT Shabbat. 10For the regression model, see Appendix C.


References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review

of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.84.5.888

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the

twenties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Battaglia, M. P., Izrael, D., Hoaglin, D. C., & Frankel, M. R. (2004). Practical considerations

in raking survey data. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion

Research, Phoenix, AZ.

Chertok, F., Sasson, T., & Saxe, L. (2009). Tourists, travelers, and citizens: Jewish engagement

of young adults in four centers of North American Jewish life. Waltham, MA: Cohen

Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.

Cohen, S. M., & Kelman, A. Y. (2007). The continuity of discontinuity: How young Jews are

connecting, creating, and organizing their own Jewish lives: Andrea and Charles

Bronfman Philanthropies.

Cohen, S. M., & Kelman, A. Y. (2008). Uncoupled: How our singles are reshaping Jewish

engagement. New York: The Jewish Identity Project of Reboot Andrea and Charles

Bronfman Philanthropies.

Deming, W. E. (1943). Statistical adjustment of data. New York: John Wiley.

Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency

table when the expected marginals are known. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11,

427-444.

Kaunfer, E. (2010). Empowered Judaism: What independent minyanim can teach us about

building vibrant Jewish communities. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.

Kim, M.-S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Attitude-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal

relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 101-142. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-

2466.1993.tb01251.x

Kotler-Berkowitz, L., Cohen, S. M., Ament, J., Klaff, V., Mott, F., & Peckerman-Neuma, D.

(2004). The National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01: Strength, challenge and

diversity in the American Jewish Population. New York: United Jewish Communities.

Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical

literature. Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58-75. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211007

Saxe, L. (2013). The Taglit-Birthright Israel generation comes of age. Paper presented at the

Taglit-Birthright Israel: An Academic Symposium, Jerusalem, Israel.

Saxe, L., & Chazan, B. (2008). Ten days of Birthright Israel: A journey in young adult identity.

Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press/ University Press of New England.

Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Hecht, S., Rosen, M. I., Phillips, B., & Kelner, S. (2004). Evaluating

Birthright Israel: Long-term impact and recent findings. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center

for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.

Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Kelner, S., Rosen, M. I., & Yereslove, E. (2002). A mega-experiment in

Jewish education: The impact of birthright israel. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for

Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.


Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Boxer, M., Hecht, S., Wright, G., & Sasson, T. (2008). Taglit-Birthright

Israel: Evaluation of the 2007-2008 North American cohorts. Waltham, MA: Cohen


Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Sasson, T., Hecht, S., Shain, M., Wright, G., et al. (2009). Generation

Birthright Israel: The impact of an Israel experience on Jewish identity and choices.

Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.

Saxe, L., Phillips, B., Sasson, T., Hecht, S., Shain, M., Wright, G., et al. (2011). Intermarriage:

The impact and lessons of Taglit-Birthright Israel. Contemporary Jewry, 31(2), 151-

172. doi: 10.1007/s12397-010-9058-z

Saxe, L., Sasson, T., & Hecht, S. (2006). Taglit-Birthright Israel: Impact on Jewish identity,

peoplehood, and connection to Israel. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish

Studies, Brandeis University.

Saxe, L., Sasson, T., Hecht, S., Phillips, B., Shain, M., Wright, G., et al. (2011). Jewish Futures

Project: The impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel, 2010 update. Waltham, MA: Cohen


Saxe, L., Sasson, T., Phillips, B., Hecht, S., & Wright, G. (2007). Taglit-Birthright Israel

evaluation: 2007 North American cohorts. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern

Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.

Saxe, L., Shain, M., Wright, G., Hecht, S., Fishman, S., & Sasson, T. (2012). Jewish Futures

Project: The impact of Taglit-Birthright Israel: 2012 update. Waltham, MA: Cohen

Center for Modern Jewish Studies.

Schmitz, C. (2009). LimeSurvey (Version 1.80RC3) [computer program].

Shain, M., Fishman, S., Wright, G., Hecht, S., & Saxe, L. (in press). “DIY” Judaism: How

contemporary Jewish young adults express their Jewish identity. Jewish Journal of

Sociology.

Sheskin, I. M., & Kotler-Berkowitz, L. (2007). Synagogues, Jewish Community Centers, and

other Jewish organizations: Who Joins, who doesn't? Journal of Jewish Communal

Service, 82(3).

StataCorp. (2009). Stata (Version 10.1) [computer program]. College Station, TX: StataCorp.

Taglit-Birthright Israel. (2013). CEO report 2013: Celebrating our bar/bat mitzvah year.

Jerusalem: Taglit-Birthright Israel.

Werner, J. (2003). QBAL (Version 1.52M) [computer program]. Pittsfield, MA: Jan Werner

Data Processing.

Wright, G., Fisher, T., & Saxe, L. (2012). Using dual sample surveys to examine the

relationship between response rate and bias. Paper presented at the American

Association of Public Opinion Research 67th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.


31

Appendix A: Methodology

Study Design Target population - This report discusses results from a survey of eligible applicants to the Taglit-

Birthright Israel program. The program offers free ten-day educational peer trips to Israel. Trips are

offered twice a year in the winter and in the summer (each trip season is hereafter referred to as

“round”). The target population of the survey discussed here is the pool of applicants for the rounds

between winter of 2006/2007 and the summer of 2010. There were a total of 131,804 eligible applicants

to these rounds.1

Sampling plan- The objective of this study was to survey the entire target population (N=131,804),

essentially conducting a “failed census.” However, it was expected that without extensive follow-up

efforts (which would not be feasible for such a large group) the achieved response rate would not be

high enough to ensure an unbiased respondent pool. Thus, in order to assess (and potentially correct

for) the extent of any bias due to low response rate in the surveyed population, a representative sample

(N=3,000) was selected for intensive follow-up with the aim of achieving a sufficiently high response rate

for this sub-group. This group is referred to here as the “sample” and the remainder of the target

population is referred to as the “frame.”

Stratification - The target population was stratified by round, participant status, age (over/under age

25), and gender. To cut down on the number of strata, round was collapsed into “year of application”

so, for example winter 2006/7 and summer 2007 were both treated as “2007” for purposes of

stratification. This led to the creation of 32 mutually exclusive strata. The selected sample (N=3,000)

corresponds to approximately 2.276% of the total target population and was designed to be perfectly

representative of it. Thus, 2.276% of the applicants in each stratum were randomly selected to be

included in the sample. The remainder of each stratum was assigned to the frame. For logistical reasons

both the sample and the frame were divided into four equally sized and equally representative

replicates. Due to the use of random selection and the stratification scheme each of the eight replicates

are representative of the entire population with respect to the stratification variables.

1 For applicants who applied to multiple rounds, the latest eligible round of application was chosen. Ineligible and

duplicate records were dropped.


32

Table 1: Characteristics of Sampling Strata

Year Participant Status

Age Sex total N % of total

Sample N

Frame N

2007 Nonparticipant Under 25

Male 1,195 0.91 27 1,168 Female 1,379 1.05 31 1,348

25+ Male 1,598 1.21 36 1,562 Female 1,643 1.25 37 1,606

Participant Under 25

Male 4,799 3.64 109 4,690 Female 6,461 4.9 147 6,314

25+ Male 6,054 4.59 138 5,916 Female 6,383 4.84 145 6,238


Male 3,171 2.41 72 3,099 Female 3,787 2.87 86 3,701

25+ Male 2,401 1.82 55 2,346 Female 2,517 1.91 57 2,460


Male 7,704 5.85 175 7,529 Female 9,911 7.52 226 9,685

25+ Male 6,867 5.21 156 6,711 Female 7,375 5.6 168 7,207


Male 5,566 4.22 127 5,439 Female 6,756 5.13 154 6,602

25+ Male 2,473 1.88 56 2,417 Female 2,687 2.04 61 2,626


Male 4,320 3.28 98 4,222 Female 5,309 4.03 121 5,188

25+ Male 3,505 2.66 80 3,425 Female 3,520 2.67 80 3,440


Male 3,103 2.35 71 3,032 Female 4,236 3.21 96 4,140

25+ Male 1,221 0.93 28 1,193 Female 1,431 1.09 33 1,398


Male 4,227 3.21 96 4,131 Female 5,557 4.22 126 5,431

25+ Male 2,162 1.64 49 2,113 Female 2,486 1.89 57 2,429

Total 131,804 3,000 128,804


33

Final survey population – The survey was administered to the replicates in a staggered manner—first

being released to two frame replicates. During field operations it became evident that response rates for

the initial two frame replicates were even lower than expected. It was decided to forgo the release of

the final two frame replicates and simply use the first two replicates as a large representative sample,

instead of the failed census that would have resulted from release of all four replicates. Consequently

the “frame” group mentioned below refers only to these two released replicates (N=64,454) and not

the entire remainder of the target population. Since each replicate (for either the “sample” or “frame”)

is a stratified random sample of the entire population, the “frame” and “sample” can both be

considered stratified random samples of the underlying population, as can their combination. See below

for a description of the response rates for the two groups.

Field Operations This study utilized an online web based survey. The Web survey was designed using an online

instrument, created in LimeSurvey (Schmitz, 2009).2 The survey was administered between February

and March of 2011. Individuals in the “frame” were sent emails inviting them to take the survey, and

offered entry into a lottery for one of a number of $100 or $200 Amazon.com gift cards if they

completed the survey. Three additional email reminders were also sent to nonrespondents encouraging

them to complete the survey. Members of the “sample” were likewise sent email invitations (and two

additional email reminders) but promised a guaranteed Amazon.com gift card for survey completion. As

a methodological experiment, members of the third sample replicate were offered $25 Amazon.com gift

cards, while members of three other sample replicates were offered $15 Amazon.com gift cards.

Approximately two weeks after the initial email invitation members of the sample who had not yet

responded were called and encouraged to complete the survey online. The callers did not actually

administer the survey to the respondents, but simply encouraged the respondents to complete it on

their own, and, in many cases, re-emailed the unique URL to an email address of the respondent’s

choosing. Because the survey was, in all cases, administered online, there are no mode effects across

the different groups.

2 Cohen Center staff made some modifications to the source code of Lime Survey before using it for this study (LimeSurvey is open-source software released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v. 2). These modifications were mainly to allow greater compatibility between Lime Survey and the in-house CATI and bulk-email sending systems.


34

Dispositions and Response rate

Table 2 shows the final dispositions and response rates for the sample and frame. As expected, the

response rate for the sample was significantly higher than that for the frame.

Table 2: Final Dispositions and Response Rates

Taglit Participants Taglit Non-Participants Total

Frame Sample Overall Frame Sample Overall Frame Sample Overall

Complete1 4,184 1,047 5,231 1,780 404 2,184 5,964 1,451 7,415

Partial2 140 13 153 65 4 94 230 17 247

Break-Off3 120 7 127 90 2 67 185 9 194

Non-respondent 38,049 926 38,975 20,026 593 20,619 58,075 1,519 59,594

Total Sample 42,493 1,993 44,486 21,961 1,003 22,964 64,454 2,996 67,450

AAPOR Response Rate 1 9.85% 52.53% 11.76% 8.11% 40.28% 9.51% 9.25% 48.43% 10.99%

AAPOR Response Rate 2 10.18% 53.19% 12.10% 8.40% 40.68% 9.92% 9.60% 49.0% 11.36%

1Completed at least 80% of the questions asked. 2Completed 50-80% of the questions asked. 3Completed less than 50% of the questions asked.

Weighting Design Weights The design weights for a stratified survey are simply the inverse of the probability of selection. For a

given strata h, the design weight is calculated as the total population of that strata over the number of

respondents in that strata:

Thus each case is assigned a weight equal to the number of elements in the population of the frame it

“represents.” In this case individuals in a given strata were assigned a weight equal to the frame

population of that strata. Cases from both the sample and the main are treated identically in the

calculation of design weights.

Comparison of sample and frame

It was expected that the sample would have a significantly higher response rate than the frame, due to

the addition of guaranteed incentives and phone follow up. By comparing the two groups the bias

associated with the lower response rate could be assessed, and, in principal, the lower response rate

frame cases could be adjusted to the marginals of the higher response rate sample. However, when the

two groups were compared on a number of key variables, there was virtually no difference.


35

Poststratification Weights

Since there were little or no substantive differences between the sample and frame groups

poststratification weights were calculated for the entire achieved sample in order to adjust for any

differences between the distribution of known characteristics of the sample and known characteristics

of the target population (known characteristics were derived from the Taglit registration database). In

addition to the characteristics used in initial stratification (participant status, year of birth, and sex),

information on Jewish denomination at time of application to the trip was available. Poststratification

weights ( ) were created by raking within weighting stratum, where the sum of the weights was set to

remain constant.3 (See below for a description of raking.) The subscript j (where ) is used

to distinguish poststratification weights, which could vary across cases within weighting stratum,

compared to the design weights, , which remained constant within weighting stratum.

Table 3. Characteristics of Weights

Weight n Mean Std.

dev. Min Max

Max:Min

ratio

Unweighted 7,645 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Design weights 7,645 17.20 4.95 7.80 28.45 3.64

Final raked weights 7,645 17.20 5.08 7.12 35.63 5.00

Calculation of Confidence Intervals

Confidence intervals in tables and figures in this report were calculated at the 95% level using Stata’s (2009) survey commands set up for a stratified survey (where the strata are defined as the weighting strata) with simple random sampling within strata.

3 Raking was carried out using QBAL (Werner, 2003).


36

Raking Raking, also known as sample balancing and iterative proportional fitting (Deming, 1943), is a

procedure that adjusts the marginal frequencies of a survey to the known marginal frequencies of a

population. For example, one might have a population divided on sex and handedness (left and right)

as follows:

Population Survey

Sex Sex

Handed M F Total Handed M F Total

R .45 .45 .90 R .25 .60 .85

L .05 .05 .10 L .05 .10 .15

Total .50 .50 1 Total .30 .70 1

Compared to the population, right-handers are somewhat underrepresented in the survey while left-

handers are somewhat overrepresented. Initially, all right-handers would receive weights of 0.90/0.85

(c. 1.06), while left-handers would receive weights of (c. 0.67). The resulting adjusted table would then

be:

Sex

Handed M F Total

R .265 .635 .900

L .033 .067 .100

Total .298 .702

Subsequently, sex would be adjusted to match the desired marginal totals, with males receiving an

additional weight of 0.50/0.298 (c. 1.678) and females receiving a weight of 0.5/0.702 (c. 0.712). After

this transformation, the weighted frequencies would be:

Sex

Handed M F Total

R .444 .453 .897

L .056 .047 .103

Total .500 .500

Further raking would yield additional weights of c. 1.003 for men and 0.971 for women and a marginal

frequency of .4998 for men and .5002 for women. Additional iterations could take place until a desired

level of precision was reached. (Precision is defined in raking in terms of the sum of the weighted

squares of the residuals, the difference between the expected and observed frequency in a cell;

Battaglia, Izrael, Hoaglin, & Frankel, 2004; Deming & Stephan, 1940.) The final weights for each cell are

approximately 1.783 for male right-handers, 1.082 for male left-handers, 0.757 for female right-

handers and 0.459 for female left-handers.


37

Appendix B: Attitudinal Impact of Taglit for Undergraduates and Non-

Undergraduates

Figure 1: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (undergraduates)*

* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background and age.


38

Figure 2: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (post-college)*

* Predicted probabilities from ordinal logistic regression models controlling for Jewish background, age, and Jewish

engagement in college


39

Figure 1: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (undergraduates) Connection to Israel Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7338 Number of PSUs = 7338 Population size = 125567.14 Subpop. no. of obs = 1720 Subpop. size = 28910.859 Design df = 7307 F( 3, 7305) = 89.98 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conisr | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 4.099914 .4241144 13.64 0.000 3.347402 5.021594 jbackground | 1.257756 .0261974 11.01 0.000 1.207436 1.310173 age | .9550767 .0312299 -1.41 0.160 .8957779 1.018301 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.738435 .7193957 -3.81 0.000 -4.148659 -1.328212 /cut2 | -.7201024 .7129515 -1.01 0.313 -2.117693 .6774884 /cut3 | .8230366 .7139234 1.15 0.249 -.5764594 2.222533 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conisr Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.1632 [ 0.1247, 0.2017] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.4316 [ 0.3917, 0.4714] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2781 [ 0.2407, 0.3156] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1271 [ 0.0965, 0.1577] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conisr Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0454 [ 0.0336, 0.0572] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2182 [ 0.1821, 0.2543] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3626 [ 0.3354, 0.3898] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3738 [ 0.3216, 0.4261] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


40

Part of a worldwide Jewish community Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7327 Number of PSUs = 7327 Population size = 125386.79 Subpop. no. of obs = 1709 Subpop. size = 28730.506 Design df = 7296 F( 3, 7294) = 44.27 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conwrldjcomm | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.944055 .1945455 6.64 0.000 1.597765 2.365398 jbackground | 1.196061 .022276 9.61 0.000 1.153181 1.240535 age | .9266951 .0288846 -2.44 0.015 .8717681 .9850829 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -3.713648 .6842035 -5.43 0.000 -5.054884 -2.372411 /cut2 | -2.044913 .6792101 -3.01 0.003 -3.376361 -.7134649 /cut3 | -.5152472 .6786801 -0.76 0.448 -1.845656 .8151621 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.1352 [ 0.1017, 0.1687] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3182 [ 0.2779, 0.3584] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3396 [ 0.3093, 0.3699] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2071 [ 0.1644, 0.2499] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0744 [ 0.0563, 0.0925] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2246 [ 0.1909, 0.2583] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3642 [ 0.3394, 0.3890] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3368 [ 0.2884, 0.3851] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


41

Connection to local Jewish Community Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7327 Number of PSUs = 7327 Population size = 125386.79 Subpop. no. of obs = 1709 Subpop. size = 28730.506 Design df = 7296 F( 3, 7294) = 56.28 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized conlocaljcomm | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.62848 .1568567 5.06 0.000 1.34828 1.96691 jbackground | 1.203286 .0201953 11.03 0.000 1.164342 1.243533 age | .8646591 .0256473 -4.90 0.000 .8158167 .9164257 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -4.359598 .6480228 -6.73 0.000 -5.62991 -3.089286 /cut2 | -2.970489 .6411076 -4.63 0.000 -4.227245 -1.713732 /cut3 | -1.605666 .6379344 -2.52 0.012 -2.856202 -.3551298 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.3126 [ 0.2600, 0.3651] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3333 [ 0.3061, 0.3606] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2313 [ 0.1985, 0.2641] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1228 [ 0.0943, 0.1514] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.2183 [ 0.1821, 0.2544] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3100 [ 0.2814, 0.3386] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2860 [ 0.2581, 0.3139] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1857 [ 0.1531, 0.2183] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


42

Connection to Jewish peers Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7327 Number of PSUs = 7327 Population size = 125386.79 Subpop. no. of obs = 1709 Subpop. size = 28730.506 Design df = 7296 F( 3, 7294) = 37.97 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conjpeers | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.582806 .1570742 4.63 0.000 1.302994 1.922707 jbackground | 1.202816 .0231149 9.61 0.000 1.158347 1.248992 age | .9169108 .0301471 -2.64 0.008 .859678 .9779538 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -4.545802 .7226295 -6.29 0.000 -5.962365 -3.129239 /cut2 | -2.527898 .7173779 -3.52 0.000 -3.934167 -1.12163 /cut3 | -.9809528 .7161951 -1.37 0.171 -2.384902 .4229968 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conjpeers Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0812 [ 0.0573, 0.1051] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3181 [ 0.2716, 0.3647] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3581 [ 0.3303, 0.3859] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2426 [ 0.1944, 0.2908] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conjpeers Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0529 [ 0.0378, 0.0679] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2429 [ 0.2047, 0.2811] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3678 [ 0.3429, 0.3928] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3364 [ 0.2860, 0.3868] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


43

Figure 2: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (post-college). Controlling for campus engagement to make comparable with other non-undergrad models. Connection to Israel Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6863 Number of PSUs = 6863 Population size = 117515.15 Subpop. no. of obs = 5034 Subpop. size = 86671.925 Design df = 6831 F( 4, 6828) = 142.10 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conisr | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 3.118838 .2062532 17.20 0.000 2.739629 3.550536 jbackground | 1.20868 .0150465 15.22 0.000 1.179541 1.238539 age | .9625404 .0118911 -3.09 0.002 .9395102 .9861351 campus | 1.460657 .0978168 5.66 0.000 1.280959 1.665564 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.617044 .3331412 -7.86 0.000 -3.270104 -1.963984 /cut2 | -.4031113 .3295085 -1.22 0.221 -1.049051 .2428279 /cut3 | 1.207937 .3298352 3.66 0.000 .5613572 1.854517 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conisr Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.1200 [ 0.1052, 0.1349] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.4352 [ 0.4136, 0.4568] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3069 [ 0.2889, 0.3248] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1379 [ 0.1227, 0.1530] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 .77057955 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conisr Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0419 [ 0.0370, 0.0468] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2439 [ 0.2299, 0.2580] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3813 [ 0.3662, 0.3964] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3328 [ 0.3158, 0.3498] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .14731941 24.747265 .77057955


44

Connection to worldwide Jewish community Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6837 Number of PSUs = 6837 Population size = 117006.46 Subpop. no. of obs = 5008 Subpop. size = 86163.236 Design df = 6805 F( 5, 6801) = 83.03 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conwrldjcomm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | .3518671 .0616701 5.71 0.000 .2309743 .4727598 jbackground | .1730863 .0141158 12.26 0.000 .1454148 .2007577 age | -.0366256 .0122229 -3.00 0.003 -.0605863 -.0126648 campus | .7835066 .0669917 11.70 0.000 .6521819 .9148313 orthodox | -.3157956 .2620877 -1.20 0.228 -.8295695 .1979783 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.713995 .3317945 -8.18 0.000 -3.364416 -2.063574 /cut2 | -.6737066 .3270229 -2.06 0.039 -1.314774 -.0326393 /cut3 | .9342009 .3261595 2.86 0.004 .2948263 1.573576 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0811 [ 0.0704, 0.0918] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3233 [ 0.3026, 0.3440] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3678 [ 0.3521, 0.3835] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2278 [ 0.2079, 0.2478] participant jbackground age campus orthodox x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 .77151335 .0317716 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0584 [ 0.0518, 0.0651] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2647 [ 0.2501, 0.2794] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3813 [ 0.3665, 0.3961] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2955 [ 0.2794, 0.3116] participant jbackground age campus orthodox x= 1 .14731941 24.747265 .77151335 .0317716 .


45

Connection to local Jewish community Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6838 Number of PSUs = 6838 Population size = 117028.78 Subpop. no. of obs = 5009 Subpop. size = 86185.555 Design df = 6806 F( 4, 6803) = 106.11 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized conlocaljcomm | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.227723 .0742974 3.39 0.001 1.090385 1.382361 jbackground | 1.184049 .0144531 13.84 0.000 1.156053 1.212723 age | .9666714 .011564 -2.83 0.005 .944266 .9896084 campus | 2.26625 .1528583 12.13 0.000 1.985565 2.586613 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -1.099832 .3192674 -3.44 0.001 -1.725696 -.4739682 /cut2 | .2853786 .3192333 0.89 0.371 -.3404185 .9111756 /cut3 | 1.816845 .3216231 5.65 0.000 1.186363 2.447327 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.2855 [ 0.2630, 0.3081] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3294 [ 0.3149, 0.3439] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2658 [ 0.2483, 0.2834] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1192 [ 0.1061, 0.1324] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 .77155572 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.2456 [ 0.2307, 0.2605] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3198 [ 0.3057, 0.3338] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2921 [ 0.2773, 0.3070] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1425 [ 0.1310, 0.1541] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .14731941 24.747265 .77155572


46

Connection to Jewish peers Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6836 Number of PSUs = 6836 Population size = 116995.7 Subpop. no. of obs = 5007 Subpop. size = 86152.476 Design df = 6804 F( 4, 6801) = 100.28 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conjpeers | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.313028 .0814482 4.39 0.000 1.16269 1.482805 jbackground | 1.171941 .0140691 13.22 0.000 1.144684 1.199848 age | .984801 .0122734 -1.23 0.219 .9610329 1.009157 campus | 2.364948 .1603953 12.69 0.000 2.070529 2.701233 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.435313 .3328788 -7.32 0.000 -3.08786 -1.782767 /cut2 | -.3855634 .3277036 -1.18 0.239 -1.027965 .2568382 /cut3 | 1.375409 .3279361 4.19 0.000 .7325518 2.018266 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conjpeers Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0604 [ 0.0518, 0.0690] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2727 [ 0.2526, 0.2928] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.4109 [ 0.3958, 0.4260] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2560 [ 0.2345, 0.2775] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 .77165646 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conjpeers Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0467 [ 0.0407, 0.0527] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2289 [ 0.2152, 0.2426] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.4132 [ 0.3983, 0.4282] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3112 [ 0.2948, 0.3276] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .14731941 24.747265 .77165646


47

Appendix C: Tables Figure 6: Feelings of Jewish connection by Taglit participation (undergraduate and post-college) Connection to Israel Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 7193 Number of PSUs = 7193 Population size = 123246.95 Subpop. no. of obs = 7193 Subpop. size = 123246.95 Design df = 7161 F( 3, 7159) = 288.28 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conisr | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 3.217168 .172845 21.75 0.000 2.895573 3.574481 jbackground | 1.234006 .0123365 21.03 0.000 1.210058 1.258428 age | .9571475 .0082266 -5.10 0.000 .9411559 .9734107 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.964825 .2175934 -13.63 0.000 -3.391373 -2.538278 /cut2 | -.8484915 .2128106 -3.99 0.000 -1.265663 -.4313199 /cut3 | .7364116 .2127108 3.46 0.001 .3194357 1.153388 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conisr Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.1288 [ 0.1161, 0.1414] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.4222 [ 0.4048, 0.4395] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3059 [ 0.2916, 0.3202] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1432 [ 0.1307, 0.1556] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conisr Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0439 [ 0.0398, 0.0481] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2321 [ 0.2212, 0.2431] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3743 [ 0.3617, 0.3869] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3496 [ 0.3360, 0.3632] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


48

Connection to worldwide Jewish community Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 7154 Number of PSUs = 7154 Population size = 122514.9 Subpop. no. of obs = 7154 Subpop. size = 122514.9 Design df = 7122 F( 3, 7120) = 150.63 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conwrldjcomm | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.551975 .0783984 8.70 0.000 1.405655 1.713526 jbackground | 1.187533 .0113014 18.06 0.000 1.165585 1.209895 age | .9457254 .0080005 -6.60 0.000 .9301714 .9615395 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -3.605105 .2181892 -16.52 0.000 -4.03282 -3.177389 /cut2 | -1.699293 .2122828 -8.00 0.000 -2.115431 -1.283156 /cut3 | -.1342366 .2108861 -0.64 0.524 -.5476359 .2791628 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0954 [ 0.0856, 0.1052] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3195 [ 0.3034, 0.3357] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3574 [ 0.3447, 0.3701] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2277 [ 0.2118, 0.2436] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conwrldjcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0636 [ 0.0579, 0.0694] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2500 [ 0.2387, 0.2613] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3724 [ 0.3603, 0.3846] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3139 [ 0.3008, 0.3270] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


49

Importance of marrying a Jew Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 7155 Number of PSUs = 7155 Population size = 122537.22 Subpop. no. of obs = 7155 Subpop. size = 122537.22 Design df = 7123 F( 3, 7121) = 186.93 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized conlocaljcomm | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.313296 .0648511 5.52 0.000 1.192127 1.446779 jbackground | 1.195168 .0109031 19.54 0.000 1.173984 1.216733 age | .9187525 .0076985 -10.11 0.000 .9037843 .9339686 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.999901 .2091625 -14.34 0.000 -3.409922 -2.58988 /cut2 | -1.669131 .2071253 -8.06 0.000 -2.075158 -1.263104 /cut3 | -.2123508 .2075266 -1.02 0.306 -.6191647 .1944631 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.2831 [ 0.2655, 0.3008] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3160 [ 0.3039, 0.3281] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2660 [ 0.2524, 0.2797] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1349 [ 0.1236, 0.1462] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conlocaljcomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.2312 [ 0.2196, 0.2427] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.3011 [ 0.2896, 0.3125] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2978 [ 0.2857, 0.3099] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.1700 [ 0.1599, 0.1800] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


50

Importance of raising kids Jewish Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 7153 Number of PSUs = 7153 Population size = 122504.14 Subpop. no. of obs = 7153 Subpop. size = 122504.14 Design df = 7121 F( 3, 7119) = 135.92 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized conjpeers | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.404513 .071432 6.68 0.000 1.271239 1.551759 jbackground | 1.1907 .0114308 18.18 0.000 1.168502 1.21332 age | .9602034 .0083488 -4.67 0.000 .943976 .9767099 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -3.593858 .2205814 -16.29 0.000 -4.026263 -3.161453 /cut2 | -1.616625 .2158167 -7.49 0.000 -2.03969 -1.19356 /cut3 | .0474102 .2149397 0.22 0.825 -.3739355 .4687558 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conjpeers Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0682 [ 0.0605, 0.0759] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2776 [ 0.2615, 0.2938] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3904 [ 0.3781, 0.4027] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.2637 [ 0.2462, 0.2813] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for conjpeers Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_at_a|x): 0.0495 [ 0.0444, 0.0546] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.2239 [ 0.2131, 0.2348] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3918 [ 0.3796, 0.4040] Pr(y=Very_muc|x): 0.3347 [ 0.3214, 0.3480] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


51

Figure 7: Importance of being Jewish and forming a Jewish family by Taglit participation Importance of marrying a Jew Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6025 Number of PSUs = 6025 Population size = 103043.26 Subpop. no. of obs = 6025 Subpop. size = 103043.26 Design df = 5993 F( 3, 5991) = 292.53 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recimpmrryjew | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.584985 .0871186 8.38 0.000 1.42308 1.765309 jbackground | 1.512382 .0222651 28.10 0.000 1.469358 1.556665 age | .9528539 .0092868 -4.96 0.000 .9348213 .9712345 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -2.258821 .2394495 -9.43 0.000 -2.728228 -1.789413 /cut2 | -1.253876 .2379293 -5.27 0.000 -1.720303 -.7874486 /cut3 | -.0495858 .2377203 -0.21 0.835 -.5156032 .4164316 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for recimpmrryjew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.2452 [ 0.2264, 0.2639] Pr(y=2|x): 0.2250 [ 0.2118, 0.2382] Pr(y=3|x): 0.2772 [ 0.2635, 0.2910] Pr(y=4|x): 0.2526 [ 0.2339, 0.2714] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for recimpmrryjew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.1701 [ 0.1587, 0.1814] Pr(y=2|x): 0.1888 [ 0.1778, 0.1998] Pr(y=3|x): 0.2923 [ 0.2788, 0.3057] Pr(y=4|x): 0.3489 [ 0.3333, 0.3644] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


52

Importance of raising kids jewish Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6459 Number of PSUs = 6459 Population size = 110500.62 Subpop. no. of obs = 6459 Subpop. size = 110500.62 Design df = 6427 F( 3, 6425) = 223.84 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized recfutchild | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.693277 .0941927 9.47 0.000 1.518339 1.88837 jbackground | 1.469045 .0234297 24.12 0.000 1.423825 1.515701 age | .9725496 .0093119 -2.91 0.004 .9544654 .9909765 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -3.009235 .2427826 -12.39 0.000 -3.48517 -2.5333 /cut2 | -1.764976 .2394798 -7.37 0.000 -2.234436 -1.295515 /cut3 | -.6031721 .2385193 -2.53 0.011 -1.070749 -.1355949 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for recfutchild Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.0849 [ 0.0754, 0.0945] Pr(y=2|x): 0.1587 [ 0.1458, 0.1716] Pr(y=3|x): 0.2636 [ 0.2501, 0.2771] Pr(y=4|x): 0.4928 [ 0.4688, 0.5167] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for recfutchild Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.0520 [ 0.0466, 0.0573] Pr(y=2|x): 0.1079 [ 0.0996, 0.1161] Pr(y=3|x): 0.2183 [ 0.2070, 0.2295] Pr(y=4|x): 0.6219 [ 0.6059, 0.6380] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


53

Importance of being Jewish Survey: Ordered logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 7152 Number of PSUs = 7152 Population size = 122503.52 Subpop. no. of obs = 7152 Subpop. size = 122503.52 Design df = 7120 F( 3, 7118) = 178.75 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized impbejew | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.563738 .0811554 8.61 0.000 1.412474 1.7312 jbackground | 1.295612 .015587 21.53 0.000 1.265414 1.32653 age | .9831024 .0086092 -1.95 0.052 .9663698 1.000125 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /cut1 | -3.428925 .2248367 -15.25 0.000 -3.869671 -2.988178 /cut2 | -1.549627 .2184171 -7.09 0.000 -1.977789 -1.121464 /cut3 | -.0979647 .2178289 -0.45 0.653 -.524974 .3290446 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackground . local a=meanage . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for impbejew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_impo|x): 0.0454 [ 0.0393, 0.0515] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.1922 [ 0.1780, 0.2063] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.3334 [ 0.3202, 0.3465] Pr(y=Very_imp|x): 0.4291 [ 0.4075, 0.4506] participant jbackground age x= 0 .14731941 24.747265 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') ologit: Predictions for impbejew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Not_impo|x): 0.0295 [ 0.0257, 0.0333] Pr(y=A_little|x): 0.1366 [ 0.1278, 0.1454] Pr(y=Somewhat|x): 0.2936 [ 0.2820, 0.3052] Pr(y=Very_imp|x): 0.5403 [ 0.5254, 0.5552] participant jbackground age x= 1 .14731941 24.747265


54

Figure 8: Being invited to activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by Taglit participation Being invited to Hillel Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7281 Number of PSUs = 7281 Population size = 124582.94 Subpop. no. of obs = 1663 Subpop. size = 27926.662 Design df = 7250 F( 6, 7245) = 22.67 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized rechillelin~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .5134619 .1881915 2.73 0.006 .1445517 .8823721 jbackground | -.0361351 .0348214 -1.04 0.299 -.1043952 .0321249 age | -.1254548 .0575031 -2.18 0.029 -.2381777 -.0127319 _cons | 1.841372 1.281084 1.44 0.151 -.6699261 4.35267 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | 1.065389 .1341132 7.94 0.000 .8024881 1.32829 jbackground | -.010742 .0241537 -0.44 0.657 -.0580904 .0366064 age | -.3827646 .0422618 -9.06 0.000 -.46561 -.2999191 _cons | 8.829728 .9287095 9.51 0.000 7.009187 10.65027 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for rechillelinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1347 [ 0.1063, 0.1631] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.5228 [ 0.4801, 0.5654] Pr(y=0|x): 0.3426 [ 0.3019, 0.3832] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for rechillelinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1080 [ 0.0877, 0.1282] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.7277 [ 0.6983, 0.7571] Pr(y=0|x): 0.1643 [ 0.1396, 0.1890] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


55

Being invited to Chabad . svy, subpop(subpop if undergradsvy==1): mlogit recchabadinvite participant jbackground age, base(0) (running mlogit on estimation sample) Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7266 Number of PSUs = 7266 Population size = 124366.15 Subpop. no. of obs = 1648 Subpop. size = 27709.868 Design df = 7235 F( 6, 7230) = 18.43 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recchabadin~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .436478 .1896073 2.30 0.021 .0647924 .8081636 jbackground | .1597508 .0332923 4.80 0.000 .0944882 .2250133 age | -.1983958 .0542854 -3.65 0.000 -.3048111 -.0919805 _cons | 2.431129 1.185451 2.05 0.040 .1072986 4.75496 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | .4625385 .1212736 3.81 0.000 .2248068 .7002702 jbackground | .1914994 .0231597 8.27 0.000 .1460997 .2368991 age | -.2068873 .0404399 -5.12 0.000 -.2861613 -.1276133 _cons | 3.913964 .8757294 4.47 0.000 2.197279 5.63065 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recchabadinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.0913 [ 0.0670, 0.1157] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.3404 [ 0.2980, 0.3827] Pr(y=0|x): 0.5683 [ 0.5236, 0.6130] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recchabadinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1131 [ 0.0922, 0.1339] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.4324 [ 0.4002, 0.4645] Pr(y=0|x): 0.4546 [ 0.4221, 0.4871] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


56

Being invited to J frat Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7279 Number of PSUs = 7279 Population size = 124546.19 Subpop. no. of obs = 1661 Subpop. size = 27889.906 Design df = 7248 F( 6, 7243) = 8.98 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recjfratinv~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .2100738 .1616032 1.30 0.194 -.1067156 .5268632 jbackground | .0069823 .0266706 0.26 0.793 -.0452999 .0592644 age | -.2195389 .0563756 -3.89 0.000 -.3300515 -.1090263 _cons | 3.226428 1.229459 2.62 0.009 .8163302 5.636527 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | .3727898 .1232958 3.02 0.003 .1310942 .6144855 jbackground | .0142394 .0189059 0.75 0.451 -.0228218 .0513005 age | -.3075846 .0512536 -6.00 0.000 -.4080567 -.2071126 _cons | 5.828708 1.110283 5.25 0.000 3.65223 8.005187 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recjfratinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1273 [ 0.1000, 0.1546] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.2498 [ 0.2135, 0.2862] Pr(y=0|x): 0.6228 [ 0.5820, 0.6637] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recjfratinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1375 [ 0.1152, 0.1597] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.3174 [ 0.2875, 0.3474] Pr(y=0|x): 0.5451 [ 0.5129, 0.5773] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


57

Being invited to other Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7270 Number of PSUs = 7270 Population size = 124439.49 Subpop. no. of obs = 1652 Subpop. size = 27783.21 Design df = 7239 F( 6, 7234) = 5.91 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recothgrpin~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .3593546 .2734285 1.31 0.189 -.176645 .8953542 jbackground | .0420417 .0388899 1.08 0.280 -.0341939 .1182773 age | .0058276 .0718241 0.08 0.935 -.1349686 .1466237 _cons | -3.25203 1.577606 -2.06 0.039 -6.344599 -.1594616 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | .5358522 .1554388 3.45 0.001 .2311467 .8405576 jbackground | .0535454 .0194473 2.75 0.006 .015423 .0916678 age | -.2485805 .0612171 -4.06 0.000 -.3685839 -.1285771 _cons | 3.426306 1.316477 2.60 0.009 .845627 6.006984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.0382 [ 0.0221, 0.0543] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1149 [ 0.0881, 0.1417] Pr(y=0|x): 0.8469 [ 0.8167, 0.8772] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpinvite Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.0498 [ 0.0356, 0.0641] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1788 [ 0.1541, 0.2036] Pr(y=0|x): 0.7713 [ 0.7442, 0.7985] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


58

Figure 9 : Participating in activities sponsored by campus-based Jewish organizations by Taglit participation Engaged Hillel Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7276 Number of PSUs = 7276 Population size = 124455.51 Subpop. no. of obs = 1658 Subpop. size = 27799.229 Design df = 7245 F( 6, 7240) = 24.62 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized rechillelen~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .2712783 .1374167 1.97 0.048 .0019016 .540655 jbackground | .0044655 .0231894 0.19 0.847 -.0409926 .0499236 age | -.2803584 .0431056 -6.50 0.000 -.364858 -.1958587 _cons | 5.247171 .9437638 5.56 0.000 3.397119 7.097223 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | 1.124382 .1362233 8.25 0.000 .8573441 1.391419 jbackground | .0630491 .0212259 2.97 0.003 .0214402 .104658 age | -.442881 .0534131 -8.29 0.000 -.5475862 -.3381758 _cons | 8.500233 1.146622 7.41 0.000 6.252521 10.74795 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for rechillelengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.2367 [ 0.2012, 0.2723] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1791 [ 0.1471, 0.2111] Pr(y=0|x): 0.5842 [ 0.5422, 0.6261] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for rechillelengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.2147 [ 0.1877, 0.2418] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.3813 [ 0.3491, 0.4135] Pr(y=0|x): 0.4040 [ 0.3714, 0.4366] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


59

Engaged Chabad Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7262 Number of PSUs = 7262 Population size = 124236.55 Subpop. no. of obs = 1644 Subpop. size = 27580.268 Design df = 7231 F( 6, 7226) = 17.01 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recchabaden~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .1996125 .1634109 1.22 0.222 -.1207206 .5199456 jbackground | .1704479 .0247243 6.89 0.000 .1219811 .2189147 age | -.0625576 .0474242 -1.32 0.187 -.1555229 .0304078 _cons | -.4879479 1.028409 -0.47 0.635 -2.50393 1.528034 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | .3897449 .1588977 2.45 0.014 .0782589 .7012309 jbackground | .2283389 .0247203 9.24 0.000 .1798798 .276798 age | -.1515095 .0549356 -2.76 0.006 -.2591993 -.0438196 _cons | 1.437759 1.181709 1.22 0.224 -.8787366 3.754254 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recchabadengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1279 [ 0.0994, 0.1564] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1289 [ 0.1001, 0.1578] Pr(y=0|x): 0.7431 [ 0.7050, 0.7813] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recchabadengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1433 [ 0.1207, 0.1659] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1747 [ 0.1499, 0.1996] Pr(y=0|x): 0.6820 [ 0.6513, 0.7126] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


60

Engaged Jewish fraternity Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7269 Number of PSUs = 7269 Population size = 124350 Subpop. no. of obs = 1651 Subpop. size = 27693.719 Design df = 7238 F( 6, 7233) = 9.16 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recjfrateng~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .3420663 .1580722 2.16 0.030 .0321987 .651934 jbackground | .0104575 .0232689 0.45 0.653 -.0351564 .0560713 age | -.235585 .0710944 -3.31 0.001 -.3749507 -.0962193 _cons | 3.289087 1.5468 2.13 0.034 .2569077 6.321266 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | .3969875 .150718 2.63 0.008 .1015363 .6924387 jbackground | .0100597 .0198293 0.51 0.612 -.0288115 .0489308 age | -.3311063 .0532796 -6.21 0.000 -.4355499 -.2266627 _cons | 5.459319 1.144362 4.77 0.000 3.216035 7.702603 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recjfratengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1163 [ 0.0903, 0.1423] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1252 [ 0.0981, 0.1523] Pr(y=0|x): 0.7585 [ 0.7233, 0.7937] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recjfratengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.1477 [ 0.1246, 0.1708] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.1680 [ 0.1442, 0.1917] Pr(y=0|x): 0.6843 [ 0.6543, 0.7143] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


61

Engaged other Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7249 Number of PSUs = 7249 Population size = 124056.38 Subpop. no. of obs = 1631 Subpop. size = 27400.096 Design df = 7218 F( 6, 7213) = 7.78 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized recothgrpen~e | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 0 | (base outcome) --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once_or_twice | participant | .5912407 .2803663 2.11 0.035 .0416407 1.140841 jbackground | -.0036656 .0383258 -0.10 0.924 -.0787953 .0714642 age | -.1552674 .0888145 -1.75 0.080 -.3293698 .0188351 _cons | .0339555 1.934509 0.02 0.986 -3.758248 3.826159 --------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- 3__times | participant | .8370428 .2461898 3.40 0.001 .3544388 1.319647 jbackground | .1010684 .0256657 3.94 0.000 .0507561 .1513808 age | -.3088655 .0926279 -3.33 0.001 -.4904432 -.1272877 _cons | 3.434243 1.997591 1.72 0.086 -.4816204 7.350107 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.0319 [ 0.0173, 0.0465] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.0350 [ 0.0204, 0.0495] Pr(y=0|x): 0.9331 [ 0.9128, 0.9534] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for recothgrpengage Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once_or_|x): 0.0538 [ 0.0391, 0.0684] Pr(y=3+_times|x): 0.0754 [ 0.0573, 0.0935] Pr(y=0|x): 0.8709 [ 0.8484, 0.8933] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


62

Figure 10 : Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (undergraduates) Parties Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 30 Number of obs = 7145 Number of PSUs = 7145 Population size = 123326.06 Subpop. no. of obs = 1671 Subpop. size = 28057.698 Design df = 7115 F( 6, 7110) = 13.08 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypeparty | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .1388439 .1443742 0.96 0.336 -.1441725 .4218603 jbackground | .0462707 .0272347 1.70 0.089 -.0071174 .0996587 age | -.0638728 .0446501 -1.43 0.153 -.1514003 .0236547 _cons | .4833559 .9799774 0.49 0.622 -1.437691 2.404403 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .6242336 .1236066 5.05 0.000 .3819279 .8665392 jbackground | .139448 .0219724 6.35 0.000 .0963755 .1825205 age | -.19371 .0425905 -4.55 0.000 -.2772 -.11022 _cons | 3.593675 .9199281 3.91 0.000 1.790342 5.397008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 2 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.2079 [ 0.1739, 0.2420] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.2853 [ 0.2478, 0.3227] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.5068 [ 0.4649, 0.5487] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1869 [ 0.1618, 0.2120] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.4166 [ 0.3844, 0.4488] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.3965 [ 0.3645, 0.4285] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


63

Lectures Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7284 Number of PSUs = 7284 Population size = 124607.62 Subpop. no. of obs = 1666 Subpop. size = 27951.337 Design df = 7253 F( 6, 7248) = 18.68 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypelecture | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .4122115 .1460165 2.82 0.005 .1259766 .6984464 jbackground | .0890181 .0267939 3.32 0.001 .0364943 .141542 age | -.0742488 .0462871 -1.60 0.109 -.164985 .0164874 _cons | .3112562 1.014808 0.31 0.759 -1.678062 2.300575 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .6782869 .1300481 5.22 0.000 .4233547 .9332191 jbackground | .1989864 .0222125 8.96 0.000 .1554433 .2425294 age | -.1434456 .0469692 -3.05 0.002 -.235519 -.0513723 _cons | 2.022099 1.01895 1.98 0.047 .0246603 4.019537 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1713 [ 0.1397, 0.2028] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.2216 [ 0.1871, 0.2562] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.6071 [ 0.5660, 0.6482] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1986 [ 0.1730, 0.2242] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.3353 [ 0.3040, 0.3665] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.4661 [ 0.4331, 0.4991] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


64

Cultural events Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 30 Number of obs = 7130 Number of PSUs = 7130 Population size = 123093.26 Subpop. no. of obs = 1656 Subpop. size = 27824.891 Design df = 7100 F( 6, 7095) = 15.18 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypecult | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .3628591 .1394548 2.60 0.009 .0894862 .636232 jbackground | .0431879 .022644 1.91 0.057 -.001201 .0875768 age | -.1416405 .0458061 -3.09 0.002 -.2314342 -.0518468 _cons | 1.804828 .9952196 1.81 0.070 -.146099 3.755755 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .9767898 .1458046 6.70 0.000 .6909692 1.26261 jbackground | .1117346 .0211722 5.28 0.000 .0702309 .1532384 age | -.2546416 .0588054 -4.33 0.000 -.3699177 -.1393655 _cons | 3.919122 1.269488 3.09 0.002 1.430547 6.407697 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 2 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1882 [ 0.1557, 0.2208] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1360 [ 0.1078, 0.1642] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.6757 [ 0.6367, 0.7148] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.2069 [ 0.1812, 0.2327] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.2763 [ 0.2471, 0.3054] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.5168 [ 0.4842, 0.5494] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


65

Activism Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 30 Number of obs = 7139 Number of PSUs = 7139 Population size = 123224.77 Subpop. no. of obs = 1665 Subpop. size = 27956.405 Design df = 7109 F( 6, 7104) = 13.85 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypecomm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .5768973 .1705737 3.38 0.001 .2425221 .9112724 jbackground | .0796417 .0243575 3.27 0.001 .0318938 .1273896 age | -.195302 .0619167 -3.15 0.002 -.3166772 -.0739268 _cons | 2.132551 1.331237 1.60 0.109 -.4770698 4.742171 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .8903433 .1616975 5.51 0.000 .5733681 1.207318 jbackground | .1326439 .0210926 6.29 0.000 .0912962 .1739916 age | -.1771288 .0664051 -2.67 0.008 -.3073027 -.046955 _cons | 1.713041 1.442583 1.19 0.235 -1.11485 4.540933 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 2 strata omitted because they contain no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0978 [ 0.0728, 0.1227] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0988 [ 0.0745, 0.1231] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.8034 [ 0.7702, 0.8366] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1429 [ 0.1208, 0.1649] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1976 [ 0.1718, 0.2234] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.6595 [ 0.6289, 0.6901] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


66

Other Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 31 Number of obs = 7270 Number of PSUs = 7270 Population size = 124404.87 Subpop. no. of obs = 1652 Subpop. size = 27748.593 Design df = 7239 F( 6, 7234) = 3.47 Prob > F = 0.0020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypeoth | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .3666045 .3144066 1.17 0.244 -.2497242 .9829332 jbackground | .0018869 .037685 0.05 0.960 -.0719867 .0757606 age | -.0677431 .0791143 -0.86 0.392 -.2228302 .0873439 _cons | -2.051158 1.723949 -1.19 0.234 -5.430601 1.328285 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .4980825 .1827827 2.72 0.006 .139775 .8563899 jbackground | .0649512 .0222543 2.92 0.004 .0213262 .1085761 age | -.1197302 .0583131 -2.05 0.040 -.2340409 -.0054195 _cons | .0996043 1.253688 0.08 0.937 -2.357991 2.557199 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: 1 stratum omitted because it contains no subpopulation members. . local j=meanjbackgroundU . local a=meanageU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0262 [ 0.0130, 0.0393] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0746 [ 0.0537, 0.0955] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.8992 [ 0.8750, 0.9235] participant jbackground age x= 0 .59508695 21.947208 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0356 [ 0.0240, 0.0472] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1158 [ 0.0958, 0.1359] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.8485 [ 0.8261, 0.8710] participant jbackground age x= 1 .59508695 21.947208


67

Figure 11: Attending events sponsored by a Jewish organization (post-college) Parties Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6769 Number of PSUs = 6769 Population size = 115846.97 Subpop. no. of obs = 4940 Subpop. size = 85003.75 Design df = 6737 F( 8, 6730) = 36.51 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypeparty | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .2552055 .0936444 2.73 0.006 .0716329 .438778 jbackground | .0549723 .0167071 3.29 0.001 .022221 .0877235 age | -.0212984 .0181322 -1.17 0.240 -.0568433 .0142464 campus | .8360304 .1090162 7.67 0.000 .6223241 1.049737 _cons | -1.552917 .4819093 -3.22 0.001 -2.497611 -.6082222 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .4828433 .0884956 5.46 0.000 .3093639 .6563226 jbackground | .1328484 .0155386 8.55 0.000 .1023877 .163309 age | -.0575083 .0173273 -3.32 0.001 -.0914754 -.0235412 campus | 1.187273 .1104889 10.75 0.000 .9706795 1.403866 _cons | -.8215684 .4664416 -1.76 0.078 -1.735941 .0928046 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1574 [ 0.1370, 0.1778] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1699 [ 0.1488, 0.1909] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.6727 [ 0.6461, 0.6994] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeparty Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1765 [ 0.1631, 0.1899] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.2391 [ 0.2239, 0.2544] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.5844 [ 0.5668, 0.6019] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


68

Lectures Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6754 Number of PSUs = 6754 Population size = 115594.95 Subpop. no. of obs = 4925 Subpop. size = 84751.731 Design df = 6722 F( 8, 6715) = 27.66 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypelecture | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .2793499 .1041748 2.68 0.007 .0751342 .4835656 jbackground | .0508742 .0183225 2.78 0.006 .0149563 .0867921 age | -.0540889 .0205818 -2.63 0.009 -.0944358 -.0137421 campus | .7885382 .1245917 6.33 0.000 .5442989 1.032777 _cons | -1.162668 .5464121 -2.13 0.033 -2.233809 -.0915273 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .4067507 .10064 4.04 0.000 .2094643 .604037 jbackground | .1408904 .0168925 8.34 0.000 .1077757 .174005 age | -.0993407 .0204831 -4.85 0.000 -.139494 -.0591873 campus | .8209172 .1213204 6.77 0.000 .5830907 1.058744 _cons | .0571509 .5398854 0.11 0.916 -1.001196 1.115497 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1106 [ 0.0933, 0.1279] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1207 [ 0.1023, 0.1391] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.7687 [ 0.7450, 0.7924] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypelecture Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1334 [ 0.1217, 0.1452] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1654 [ 0.1521, 0.1786] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.7012 [ 0.6851, 0.7173] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


69

Cultural events Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6744 Number of PSUs = 6744 Population size = 115394.55 Subpop. no. of obs = 4915 Subpop. size = 84551.33 Design df = 6712 F( 8, 6705) = 23.14 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypecult | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | .1232238 .097196 1.27 0.205 -.0673112 .3137588 jbackground | .0506169 .0179034 2.83 0.005 .0155205 .0857133 age | -.007545 .019471 -0.39 0.698 -.0457143 .0306243 campus | .781517 .1179043 6.63 0.000 .5503871 1.012647 _cons | -2.119684 .5181854 -4.09 0.000 -3.135492 -1.103876 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .5063881 .1124187 4.50 0.000 .2860119 .7267644 jbackground | .1020411 .017271 5.91 0.000 .0681844 .1358977 age | -.0788855 .0217401 -3.63 0.000 -.121503 -.036268 campus | 1.143854 .1442159 7.93 0.000 .8611454 1.426563 _cons | -1.061427 .5686599 -1.87 0.062 -2.176181 .053327 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1401 [ 0.1206, 0.1595] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0860 [ 0.0706, 0.1014] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.7739 [ 0.7504, 0.7974] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecult Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.1474 [ 0.1350, 0.1598] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.1327 [ 0.1205, 0.1449] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.7199 [ 0.7040, 0.7358] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


70

Activism Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6747 Number of PSUs = 6747 Population size = 115451.16 Subpop. no. of obs = 4918 Subpop. size = 84607.936 Design df = 6715 F( 8, 6708) = 19.33 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypecomm | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | -.0188917 .1203611 -0.16 0.875 -.2548377 .2170543 jbackground | .0645103 .0208076 3.10 0.002 .0237208 .1052998 age | -.0468281 .0257554 -1.82 0.069 -.0973169 .0036608 campus | .6925523 .1555322 4.45 0.000 .3876599 .9974448 _cons | -1.651462 .6726906 -2.46 0.014 -2.970149 -.332775 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .7593433 .1525219 4.98 0.000 .4603519 1.058335 jbackground | .102359 .0210386 4.87 0.000 .0611167 .1436014 age | -.1543251 .0286225 -5.39 0.000 -.2104343 -.0982159 campus | 1.183764 .2070548 5.72 0.000 .7778708 1.589657 _cons | -.1229379 .7602102 -0.16 0.872 -1.613191 1.367315 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0865 [ 0.0707, 0.1024] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0372 [ 0.0273, 0.0471] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.8763 [ 0.8580, 0.8946] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypecomm Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0816 [ 0.0721, 0.0911] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0764 [ 0.0664, 0.0863] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.8420 [ 0.8289, 0.8552] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


71

Other Survey: Multinomial logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6712 Number of PSUs = 6712 Population size = 114896.44 Subpop. no. of obs = 4883 Subpop. size = 84053.218 Design df = 6680 F( 8, 6673) = 7.32 Prob > F = 0.0000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Linearized acttypeoth | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Never | (base outcome) ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Once | participant | -.1183431 .170653 -0.69 0.488 -.4528773 .2161912 jbackground | .0784454 .0273936 2.86 0.004 .0247452 .1321456 age | .0276127 .0338303 0.82 0.414 -.0387055 .0939309 campus | .4710713 .2236866 2.11 0.035 .0325741 .9095685 _cons | -4.190976 .9462103 -4.43 0.000 -6.04585 -2.336101 ---------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- More_than_once | participant | .2981011 .1473291 2.02 0.043 .009289 .5869132 jbackground | .0738468 .0232836 3.17 0.002 .0282035 .1194901 age | -.0728668 .0295385 -2.47 0.014 -.1307717 -.0149619 campus | .6629808 .1893574 3.50 0.000 .2917798 1.034182 _cons | -1.604183 .7910634 -2.03 0.043 -3.15492 -.0534465 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0403 [ 0.0294, 0.0512] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0474 [ 0.0358, 0.0590] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.9123 [ 0.8967, 0.9279] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') mlogit: Predictions for acttypeoth Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Once|x): 0.0354 [ 0.0290, 0.0417] Pr(y=More_tha|x): 0.0631 [ 0.0547, 0.0715] Pr(y=Never|x): 0.9015 [ 0.8912, 0.9118] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


72

Figure 12: Donating to Jewish causes and volunteering under Jewish sponsorship by Taglit participation (post-college) Donating Survey: Logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6755 Number of PSUs = 6755 Population size = 115645.21 Subpop. no. of obs = 4926 Subpop. size = 84801.991 Design df = 6723 F( 4, 6720) = 62.62 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized bindonatejew | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.391811 .1139442 4.04 0.000 1.185447 1.6341 jbackground | 1.206858 .0173401 13.09 0.000 1.17334 1.241333 age | 1.083022 .0171361 5.04 0.000 1.049945 1.11714 campus | 1.970793 .1826976 7.32 0.000 1.643305 2.363545 _cons | .0207669 .0089786 -8.96 0.000 .0088979 .0484682 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') logit: Predictions for bindonatejew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.2130 [ 0.1894, 0.2367] Pr(y=0|x): 0.7870 [ 0.7633, 0.8106] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') logit: Predictions for bindonatejew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.2736 [ 0.2579, 0.2894] Pr(y=0|x): 0.7264 [ 0.7106, 0.7421] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


73

Volunteering Survey: Logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6767 Number of PSUs = 6767 Population size = 115763.15 Subpop. no. of obs = 4938 Subpop. size = 84919.928 Design df = 6735 F( 4, 6732) = 46.97 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized binvoljew | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.530529 .1424667 4.57 0.000 1.275248 1.836913 jbackground | 1.155565 .0173116 9.65 0.000 1.122122 1.190004 age | .9170856 .0168073 -4.72 0.000 .8847227 .9506323 campus | 1.808647 .1974024 5.43 0.000 1.460272 2.240133 _cons | .9334862 .4583499 -0.14 0.889 .3565212 2.444165 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . local j=meanjbackgroundNU . local a=meanageNU . local c=meancampusNU . prvalue, x(participant=0 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') logit: Predictions for binvoljew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.1387 [ 0.1194, 0.1580] Pr(y=0|x): 0.8613 [ 0.8420, 0.8806] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 . prvalue, x(participant=1 jbackground=`j' age=`a' campus=`c') logit: Predictions for binvoljew Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.1977 [ 0.1838, 0.2117] Pr(y=0|x): 0.8023 [ 0.7883, 0.8162] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


74

Figure 13: Engagement in Jewish religious life by Taglit participation (post-college) Shabbat Meal Survey: Logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6765 Number of PSUs = 6765 Population size = 115813.22 Subpop. no. of obs = 4936 Subpop. size = 84969.997 Design df = 6733 F( 4, 6730) = 75.05 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized lstfri | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.326177 .1249248 3.00 0.003 1.102566 1.595138 jbackground | 1.304483 .021238 16.33 0.000 1.263507 1.346787 age | .9722277 .018329 -1.49 0.135 .936953 1.008831 campus | 1.321602 .1377741 2.67 0.007 1.07733 1.621259 _cons | .26918 .1348281 -2.62 0.009 .1008352 .7185767 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ logit: Predictions for lstfri Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.1400 [ 0.1205, 0.1595] Pr(y=0|x): 0.8600 [ 0.8405, 0.8795] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 logit: Predictions for lstfri Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.1775 [ 0.1637, 0.1913] Pr(y=0|x): 0.8225 [ 0.8087, 0.8363] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


75

Synagogue membership (running logit on estimation sample) Survey: Logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6768 Number of PSUs = 6768 Population size = 115808.6 Subpop. no. of obs = 4939 Subpop. size = 84965.377 Design df = 6736 F( 4, 6733) = 79.54 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized syn | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.333091 .1102283 3.48 0.001 1.133612 1.567672 jbackground | 1.250031 .0182057 15.32 0.000 1.214847 1.286234 age | .9087649 .0148749 -5.84 0.000 .8800682 .9383972 campus | 1.41008 .1304908 3.71 0.000 1.176138 1.690555 _cons | 2.472209 1.073786 2.08 0.037 1.055129 5.792483 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ logit: Predictions for syn Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Yes|x): 0.2181 [ 0.1940, 0.2422] Pr(y=No|x): 0.7819 [ 0.7578, 0.8060] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 logit: Predictions for syn Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=Yes|x): 0.2711 [ 0.2553, 0.2868] Pr(y=No|x): 0.7289 [ 0.7132, 0.7447] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792


76

Religious service attendance (running logit on estimation sample) Survey: Logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 6767 Number of PSUs = 6767 Population size = 115807.08 Subpop. no. of obs = 4938 Subpop. size = 84963.859 Design df = 6735 F( 4, 6732) = 64.97 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized relservbin | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- participant | 1.421419 .1104413 4.53 0.000 1.220601 1.655277 jbackground | 1.197317 .0164086 13.14 0.000 1.165579 1.229919 age | .9700594 .0148551 -1.99 0.047 .9413714 .9996215 campus | 1.80569 .1580633 6.75 0.000 1.520964 2.143718 _cons | .4491598 .1827607 -1.97 0.049 .202297 .9972692 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ logit: Predictions for relservbin Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.2459 [ 0.2214, 0.2704] Pr(y=0|x): 0.7541 [ 0.7296, 0.7786] participant jbackground age campus x= 0 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 logit: Predictions for relservbin Confidence intervals by delta method 95% Conf. Interval Pr(y=1|x): 0.3167 [ 0.3002, 0.3332] Pr(y=0|x): 0.6833 [ 0.6668, 0.6998] participant jbackground age campus x= 1 .0106291 25.603656 .77171792 NEXT participation (p. 23) Survey: Logistic regression Number of strata = 32 Number of obs = 7188 Number of PSUs = 7188 Population size = 123415.08 Subpop. no. of obs = 4924 Subpop. size = 81290.654 Design df = 7156 F( 10, 7147) = 9.42 Prob > F = 0.0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Linearized binnext | Odds Ratio Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- reground | 16 | .8122669 .1788505 -0.94 0.345 .5275258 1.250702 17 | .9160307 .1991661 -0.40 0.687 .5981471 1.402853 18 | 1.052469 .216835 0.25 0.804 .7027661 1.576187 19 | 1.962399 .3908677 3.38 0.001 1.328059 2.899726 20 | 1.821594 .4054166 2.69 0.007 1.177538 2.817918 21 | 2.775199 .5642128 5.02 0.000 1.862992 4.134064 22 | 1.836211 .3768572 2.96 0.003 1.227992 2.745678 | age | 1.059914 .0173505 3.55 0.000 1.026442 1.094478 female | 1.194027 .1050828 2.01 0.044 1.004823 1.418857 jbackground | 1.027851 .0166343 1.70 0.090 .9957546 1.060982 _cons | .0241719 .0116248 -7.74 0.000 .0094163 .0620502 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brandeis University

The Steinhardt Social Research Institute, hosted at CMJS, is committed to the development and application of innovative approaches to socio-demographic research for the study of Jewish, religious, and cultural identity.

The Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University is a multi-disciplinary research institute dedicated to the study of American Jewry and religious and cultural identity.

brandeis university...brandeis university maurice and marilyn cohen center for modern jewish studies...

Documents