San Antonio 2007 Summary Report by pengtt

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 143

									    PUBLICATION IS PROVIDED BY THE N ORTH
T HIS                                                      A MERICAN J EWISH D ATA B ANK           WITH
PERMISSION FROM THE STUDY AUTHORS .

T HE N ORTH A MERICAN J EWISH D ATA B ANK IS A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT OF T HE J EWISH
F EDERATIONS OF N ORTH A MERICA AND THE U NIVERSITY OF C ONNECTICUT ' S C ENTER FOR
J UDAIC S TUDIES AND C ONTEMPORARY J EWISH L IFE AND R OPER C ENTER FOR P UBLIC O PINION
R ESEARCH . O UR M ISSION IS TO :

        P ROVIDEEMPIRICAL SURVEY DATASETS ABOUT THE N ORTH A MERICAN J EWISH
        COMMUNITY FROM NATIONAL AND LOCAL SOCIO - DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES AS WELL AS
        OTHER TYPES OF CONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH .

        M AKEAVAILABLE SUBSTANTIVE AND METHODOLOGICAL REPORTS ON THE J EWISH
        COMMUNITY , IN PARTICULAR , REPORTS BASED ON DATASETS THAT ARE PART OF THE
        ARCHIVE .

        P ROMOTE  THE D ATA B ANK TO J EWISH F EDERATIONS , COMMUNAL ORGANIZATIONS ,
        FOUNDATIONS AND OTHER GROUPS INTERESTED IN RESEARCH CONCERNING J EWISH LIFE
        IN N ORTH A MERICA .

        E NCOURAGE ACADEMICIANS , STUDENTS , COMMUNAL PROFESSIONALS AND OTHERS                                  TO
        UTILIZE D ATA B ANK HOLDINGS AND TO SUBMIT THEIR STUDIES TO THE ARCHIVE .

        S PONSOR SEMINARS AND PROVIDE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCHERS AND
        PLANNERS TO DISCUSS ISSUES , IMPROVE METHODOLOGIES AND EXCHANGE IDEAS BASED
        ON QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH .

        P REPAREPUBLICATIONS AND OTHER FORMS OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
        CONCERNING SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ABOUT N ORTH A MERICAN J EWRY .

        P ROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND ADVICE TO J EWISH F EDERATIONS , RESEARCHERS ,
        COMMUNAL PROFESSIONALS , JOURNALISTS AND OTHERS INTERESTED IN RESEARCH ON
        THE J EWISH COMMUNITY .

P LEASE   NOTE THAT     O UR D ATASETS       AND   R EPORTS     ARE   P ROVIDED    FOR   N ON -C OMMERCIAL U SE
O NLY.

                       F OR   MORE INFORMATION , PLEASE V ISIT OUR WEBSITE AT
                                  HTTP :// WWW . JEWISHDATABANK . ORG




  Mandell L. Berman Institute North American Jewish Data Bank, Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life
                      University of Connecticut, 405 Babbidge Rd, Unit 1205, Storrs, CT 06269-1205
                                                info@jewishdatabank.org
                                         phone: 860-486-2271 fax: 860-812-2032
                       The 2007
                Jewish Community Study
                    of San Antonio


                           Summary Report




                                    Ira M. Sheskin, Ph.D.
                            Director of the Jewish Demography Project
              of the Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies
                                                and
                                        Associate Professor
                          Department of Geography and Regional Studies
                                        University of Miami
                                       isheskin@miami.edu



Electronic copies of the data and reports from this study are available at www.jewishdatabank.org.


                                         November 2007
                                          Kislev 5768
                      Jewish Federation of San Antonio
           Demographic Study Planning and Advisory Committee
                          Cathy Siegel Heins, Chair
                           Mark S. Freedman, Staff

    Mindi Alterman                    Suzanne Huber                   Lucille Behar-Mitrani
 Rabbi Leonardo Bitran                Andy Jacobson                      Woody Sanders
Rabbi Barry H. D. Block              Patricia Kalmans                Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg
  Rabbi Chaim Block                     Mike Kelne                          Bob Scott
   Susan Blumenthal                   Leslie J. Klein                      Jeff Shapiro
   Steven H. Butler                     David Koch                   Cantor David Silverstein
     Elliott Cohen                     Gary Kurzban                        Susan Staff
      Cathy Efron                      Judy Lackritz                       David Starr
     Nancy Gerson                     Saul Levenshus                       Steve White
   Robin Gurovitsch                    M. H. Levine                      Dick Wurzburg
       Hal Hoine                    Monica Liza-Miller                   Warren Zwick


                   Demographic Study Technical Committee
                            Cathy Siegel Heins, Chair
                            Mark S. Freedman, Staff

            Robin Gurovitsch                                     Mike Kelne
               Hal Hoine                                        Woody Sanders
             Andy Jacobson                                       Steve White

The Jewish Federation of San Antonio wishes to express its appreciation
  and thanks to the generous underwriters of the 2007 Demographic
              Study of the San Antonio Jewish Community:

          Nathalie and Gladys Dalkowitz Charitable Trust, Bank of America Trustee
  Aaron and Lily Glicksman Fund of the Foundation for Jewish Philanthropies of San Antonio
                               The Estate of Dr. Eugene Gold
                            Alex & Sally Halff Family Foundation
                     Jewish Federation of San Antonio Annual Campaign
                             Gladys & Ralph Lazarus Foundation
                 Rachelle and Sterling Neuman Community Endowment Fund
                     Lucille Phillips Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust
                                    Arlene and David Starr
                                           November 11, 2007

Dear Friends:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Federation of San Antonio, we are pleased to present
this comprehensive demographic study of the San Antonio Jewish Community. The release of the study
comes at a critical time for our Jewish community and its many fine institutions. The data contained in
the study should serve as a valuable source of information for the Federation, our family of beneficiary
agencies, synagogues, and other local Jewish organizations.

The study is the culmination of the extraordinary efforts and commitment of the members of the
Demographic Study Planning and Advisory Committee and the Demographic Study Technical Committee
both of which were chaired by Cathy Siegel Heins. Cathy demonstrated tremendous leadership, guidance,
and vision in developing a community consensus and creating the study framework. Cathy’s leadership
and attention to detail continued through the process of data gathering and ultimately with the presentation
of the results to the community and to a wide variety of organizational stakeholders. We salute Cathy for
a job well-done. Yasher Koach!

To conduct the research on this important study, the Jewish Federation engaged Ira. M. Sheskin, Ph.D.
a professor at the University of Miami. Using the most current research techniques, Dr. Sheskin devoted
his attention to the needs of the Demographic Study Planning and Advisory Committee and to the details
of the study itself to provide us with a survey of the highest quality and the greatest degree of accuracy.
As a result of his efforts, we have not only a definitive snapshot of our Jewish community, we have an
exhaustive document and resource that will prove invaluable in the strategic planning efforts that will take
place in the wake of the demographic study.

We are proud of the successful completion of this study and look forward with anticipation to sharing its
findings and implications with the entire community. We are confident that these data will be instrumental
in helping the Jewish Federation and all local Jewish institutions to work together to touch more Jewish
lives and build a stronger and more dynamic Jewish community in San Antonio, in Israel, and around the
world.

May we all continue to go from strength to strength.

                Mindi Alterman                                       Mark S. Freedman
                Mindi Alterman                                       Mark S. Freedman
                President                                            Executive Director
                                        Table of Contents
                                                                                                                             Page
Major Themes of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

Major Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Geographic Profile.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Demographic Profile–Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       28
Demographic Profile–Household Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            32
Demographic Profile–Household Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             33
Demographic Profile–Marital Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          38
Demographic Profile–Secular Education.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            40
Demographic Profile–Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             42
Demographic Profile–Housing Value.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            44
Demographic Profile–Household Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              45

Religious Profile–Jewish Identification.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        48
Religious Profile–Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     50
Religious Profile–Synagogue Attendance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            56
Religious Profile–Types of Marriage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         59

Membership Profile–Synagogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Membership Profile–JCC and Jewish Organizations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Feel a Part of the Jewish Community.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Jewish Education of Adults–Formal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           71
Jewish Education of Adults–Informal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          73
Jewish Education of Children–Preschool/Child Care.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                77
Jewish Education of Children–Jewish Day School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                78
Jewish Education of Children–School Age Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                81
Jewish Education of Children–Informal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           85

Jewish Agencies–Familiarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Jewish Agencies–Perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Social Service Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Israel–Visits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Emotional Attachment to Israel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
                                       Table of Contents
                                                                                                                         Page

Anti-Semitism.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

The Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Philanthropic Profile–Overall Donations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        103
Philanthropic Profile–JFSA Donations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        104
Philanthropic Profile–Other Donations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        109
Philanthropic Profile–Market Share.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       112
Philanthropic Profile–Wills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   113
Philanthropic Profile–Volunteerism.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       114
Philanthropic Profile–Attitudes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    117

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
                               Fake spacer
  Outside 1604
                                                           260
                                                                        261

                                     257
                                                         258

               255                                                      259
                           256
      O23

                                           231 248          232                              Between 410 & 1604
                               249                                     247
                                                                                    233
                                                                        217                  148
                                           230             216
        254
                   250         240                 213                              239            150
                                       229
                                                                              218                      109
                                                                 209
                               238                                                   244
253                                              201
                   251                228                212       234
                                                                             219                 262
                                                     215
                                                       208                                                     152
                                                       202
                                       237    207 205 203
      245                                                                    220
                         227                     204
                                          226           210
                           236        241    225
                                           241

                                242    211                                          222                101
                                                                                           263
            252                                                   235
             O54                                           214
                                                                             223                             Inside Loop 410
                                             224
                                                         221
      OO2

                     O73


                                                     264                           112


                                                                                           Geographic Areas
                                                                                            of Bexar County
                                                            Fake spacer
Fake spacer
                            Jewish Households by Zip Code
                              Each Dot is 5 Households
                            Bexar County
              Fake spacer
Fake spacer




                             Households on the
                        Jewish Federation Mailing List

                          Each Dot is 5 Households
                    Bexar County
          Fake spacer
                     Major Themes of the Study
San Antonio Has a Relatively Stable Jewish Population
11,200 persons live in 4,500 Jewish households in San Antonio. Of the 11,200 persons in Jewish
households, 9,100 persons (81%) are Jewish. Two findings suggest that the Jewish population has
remained relatively stable over the past six years. First, the Distinctive Jewish Names (DJN) Counting
Project suggests that the number of persons in Jewish households decreased just slightly from 11,900
persons in 2000 to 11,200 persons in 2007. This decrease is an average of about 100 persons per year,
which is well within the margin of error of the DJN methodology. Second, the number of synagogue
member households remained about the same, at 2,292 households in 2000 and 2,241 households in
2007.

The findings on migration suggest that this stability in the Jewish population may continue.
Compared to about 40 comparison Jewish communities, the 13% of Jewish households in San
Antonio who moved to the local community in the past five years is about average. The 13%
suggests that an average of 115 households who currently live in San Antonio moved to San
Antonio each year during the past five years (the in-migration rate). The 8% of Jewish households
who will definitely or probably (3.3% definitely and 4.3% probably) move out of San Antonio
within the next three years is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities. The
migration data suggest that an average of between 50 and 115 Jewish households will move out
of San Antonio each year within the next three years (the out-migration rate). Assuming that the
current rate of in-migration continues for the next few years, these data suggest that the number
of Jewish households in San Antonio will probably not change significantly during the next few
years as a result of migration into and out of San Antonio.

A decrease in San Antonio’s Jewish population may result in the future from an excess of deaths
over births in the Jewish community. 24% of persons in Jewish households are age 65 and over,
compared to 16% nationally and 12% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish). The number
of children age 0-4 in Jewish households is smaller than the number of children age 5-9, which
in turn is smaller than the number of children age 10-14. This suggests a declining birth rate for
persons in Jewish households in San Antonio.

Thus, planning should occur in an environment that assumes a relatively stable Jewish population
for the next few years but, given the uncertainty about the future, the size of the Jewish population
should be monitored at regular intervals by repeating the DJN Counting Project as soon as 2010.

Welcoming New Jewish Households to the San Antonio
Jewish Community and Identifying Existing Unknown
Jewish Households Are Important
An average of 115 Jewish households who live in San Antonio moved to San Antonio each year
during the past five years. Efforts should be made to identify new households and welcome them
to the San Antonio Jewish community. The Jewish Federation web site, www.jfsatx.org, should
be expanded to serve as a place for new residents and persons considering a move to San Antonio
to report their name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address. This information
should then be followed up personally by lay volunteers. Information about the community and
information from this study should be presented on the web site so that potential migrants to San
Antonio will be attracted to the community and will be able to select a neighborhood based on its
Jewish demographics.


                                                 i
                    Major Themes of the Study
75% of the 4,500 Jewish households in San Antonio are on the Jewish Federation of San Antonio
mailing list. The 75% is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. Use of
a CD-ROM telephone directory and lists of Distinctive Jewish Names (DJNs) would facilitate the
identification of potential additional Jewish households. Some of these households will not be
Jewish, but this can be sorted out on Super Sunday. While compared to other Jewish Federations
this Jewish Federation is doing very well in identifying Jewish households, the potential rewards
from finding new households as quickly as possible are significant. Although only 16% of
households in residence in San Antonio for 0-4 years donated to the Jewish Federation in the past
year, the percentage increases to 44% of households in residence for 5-9 years, 52% of households
in residence for 10-19 years, and 63% of households in residence for 20 or more years.

The Jewish Community Needs to Expand Their Procedures
to Track Jewish Households as They Move Within San Antonio
The Jewish Federation should keep a record of the origin and destination zip codes of known
Jewish households who move within San Antonio as address changes are received from the post
office. Doing so over a 3-5 year period will yield significant data on intra-regional migration at
no cost. For the same reason, the Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) Counting Project should be
repeated as soon as 2010 to properly monitor the size of the Jewish population and its changing
geographic distribution. If geographic shifts in the location of the Jewish population occur, the
Jewish community can react with the provision of services and programs in new areas.

A Geographic Shift in the Location of the Jewish Population
Occurred from Inside Loop 410 to Outside Loop 1604, but the Majority
of the Jewish Population Still Resides Between 410 & 1604,
Which Has Maintained Its Proportion of the Community
The geographic distribution of Jewish households in San Antonio has changed since 2000. The
percentage of Jewish households who live Between 410 & 1604 (the core area of the community)
remained about the same–59% in 2000 and 58% in 2007. However, the percentage of Jewish
households who live Inside Loop 410 decreased from 31% in 2000 to 25% in 2007, and the
percentage of Jewish households who live Outside Loop 1604 increased from 10% in 2000 to 17%
in 2007. 48% of households in residence in San Antonio for 0-4 years live Outside Loop 1604;
43%, Between 410 & 1604; and 10%, Inside Loop 410.

Consideration Should Be Given to the Extension of Services
and Programs Outside Loop 1604
Outside Loop 1604 contains 17% of Jewish households in San Antonio, up from only 10% in
2000. The number of persons in Jewish households increased from about 1,200 persons in 2000
to about 2,000 persons in 2007. In addition, the study finds some growth in Comal County just
north of Outside Loop 1604. Consideration should be given to the extension of services and
programs Outside Loop 1604. In examining possible programs, the Jewish community should
consider certain demographic factors Outside Loop 1604: 43% of married couples are intermarried
and only 36% of households are synagogue members. In addition, only 11% of households who
live Outside Loop 1604 are JCC members, and 27% of respondents in JCC non-member
households reported distance from home as the major reason for not joining the JCC.




                                               ii
                    Major Themes of the Study
Significant Regional Variations Exist among the Geographic Areas
Significant variations exist among the geographic areas in San Antonio in the demographic,
religious, membership, and philanthropic profiles of the Jewish population. Thus, results for San
Antonio as a whole should not be applied to planning at the regional level. For example, the
results for San Antonio as a whole show that 24% of persons in Jewish households are age 65 and
over; however, only 17% of persons in Jewish households Outside Loop 1604 and 34% of persons
in Jewish households Inside Loop 410 are age 65 and over. Similarly, the results for San Antonio
as a whole show that 12% of persons in Jewish households are age 75 and over; however, 21%
of persons in Jewish households Inside Loop 410 are age 75 and over.

The percentage of new households (Jewish households in residence in San Antonio for 0-4 years)
is 5% of households Inside Loop 410 and 9% of households Between 410 & 1604, compared to
35% of households Outside Loop 1604.

29% of Jewish households Inside Loop 410 are single person households, compared to 20% of
households Between 410 & 1604 and 16% of households Outside Loop 1604. The percentage of
households with children age 0-17 at home is 20% Inside Loop 410, 27% Between 410 & 1604,
and 37% Outside Loop 1604. Median household income of Jewish households increases from
$80,000 Inside Loop 410 to $89,000 Between 410 & 1604 and $112,000 Outside Loop 1604.

The percentage of Jewish respondents who attend synagogue services once per month or more is
27% both Inside Loop 410 and Between 410 & 1604, compared to 18% Outside Loop 1604. The
percentage of married couples in Jewish households who are intermarried is higher Inside Loop
410 (48%) and Outside Loop 1604 (43%) than Between 410 & 1604 (30%). The percentage of
Jewish households who are synagogue members is higher Inside Loop 410 (58%) and Between 410
& 1604 (55%) than Outside Loop 1604 (36%).

Jewish community planning and decision making should occur with these and other geographic
variations in mind.

San Antonio Has a Relatively High Percentage
of Children in Jewish Households Living in Households
in Which Divorce Plays a Role
The divorce rate of 106 divorced adults per 1,000 married adults for adults in Jewish households
in San Antonio is well above average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities. 38% of
children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in households in which an adult is or has been
divorced, which is the third highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. Developing
programs that deal with issues of divorce and blended families should be considered by the
community.

While Significant Wealth Exists in the San Antonio Jewish Community,
Some Households Are Financially Vulnerable
The median household income of $90,000 for Jewish households in San Antonio is above average
among about 45 comparison Jewish communities (adjusted for inflation). The 43% of households
who earn an annual income of $100,000 and over is the fifth highest of about 25 comparison



                                              iii
                    Major Themes of the Study
Jewish communities that have completed studies since 2000 (not adjusted for inflation). The 17%
of households who earn an annual income of $200,000 and over is the third highest of about 20
comparison Jewish communities that have completed studies since 2000 (not adjusted for
inflation).

Yet, about 350 Jewish households are considered to be low income households (earn an annual
income under $25,000), including about 60 households who live below the Federal poverty levels
(of whom about 25 households are elderly). In addition, 2% (about 80 households) of households
(all of whom earn an annual income under $25,000) needed financial assistance in the past year,
and 10% (about 300 households) of households with adults age 18-64 needed help in finding a job
or choosing an occupation in the past year.

Thus, the Jewish community should recognize the significant potential that exists for increased
philanthropy from the more affluent segment of its population, while at the same time being
responsive to its financially vulnerable members.

The San Antonio Jewish Community Reports Relatively High Incomes
but Relatively Low Housing Values
The 43% of Jewish households in San Antonio who earn an annual income of $100,000 and over
is the fifth highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities that have completed studies since
2000 (not adjusted for inflation). The 17% of households who earn an annual income of $200,000
and over is the third highest of about 20 comparison Jewish communities that have completed
studies since 2000 (not adjusted for inflation). In contrast, the $228,000 median value of homes
owned by Jewish households is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities
(adjusted for inflation, but not for cost of living or other variations that exist between
communities). The high incomes and low housing values may explain why San Antonio has the
fourth highest percentage of home ownership among Jewish households (90%) of about 35
comparison Jewish communities. Thus, the Jewish community might wish to promote San
Antonio’s reasonable housing prices as a “lure” in attracting Jewish households to the community.

Significant Strength Is Evident in Formal Involvement in San Antonio’s
Organized Jewish Community, while Other Measures
of Jewish Involvement Are Not as Strong
On measures of involvement in the organized Jewish community, San Antonio clearly shows
strength. Current synagogue membership (52%) is above average among about 50 comparison
Jewish communities, and lifetime synagogue membership (the percentage of households who are
members of a synagogue at some time during their adult lives) (83%) is the fourth highest of about
30 comparison Jewish communities. JCC membership (29%) is the fourth highest of about 45
comparison JCCs. The percentage of households who are associated with the Jewish community
(someone in the household is a member of a synagogue, JCC, or Jewish organization) (62%) is
above average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities. The percentage of respondents
who are very familiar with the Jewish Federation (32%) is the fifth highest of about 30 comparison
Jewish communities, and the percentage of households who reported that they donated to the
Jewish Federation in the past year (53%) is the fifth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish
communities.




                                              iv
                    Major Themes of the Study
On the other hand, on most measures of home religious practice, San Antonio is about average
among the comparison Jewish communities, including the percentage of households who have a
mezuzah on the front door (68%), always or usually light Chanukah candles (70%), always or
usually light Sabbath candles (20%), and keep a kosher home (10%), as well as the percentage of
respondents who keep kosher in and out of the home (5%) and who refrain from using electricity
on the Sabbath (2%).

San Antonio is also about average on various measures of Jewish identity and continuity. The
percentage of Jewish respondents who identify as Just Jewish (30%) is about average among about
50 comparison Jewish communities. The percentage of Jewish respondents who attend synagogue
services once per month or more (25%) is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish
communities. The couples intermarriage rate (37%) and the percentage of children in intermarried
households being raised Jewish (39%) are both about average among about 50 comparison Jewish
communities. The percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a Jewish day school (21%)
is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities. The percentage of households
who contain a member who visited Israel (42%) is about average among about 35 comparison
Jewish communities.

On some measures, San Antonio is below average compared to other Jewish communities. The
percentage of households who always or usually participate in a Passover Seder (69%) is below
average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities. The percentage of Jewish children age
5-12 who, according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, currently attend formal Jewish education
(57%) is well below average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities.

As in most Jewish communities, issues of Jewish identity and continuity need to be addressed in
San Antonio. The Jewish community should consider expanding efforts to engage Jewish
households in Jewish life. While 91% of households are involved Jewishly in some way (either
through religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community,
or Jewish philanthropic giving), for some, the extent of their involvement in Jewish activity is
limited.

Programs for Jewish Singles Are Particularly Important
in San Antonio
30% (2,195 adults) of Jewish adults age 18-64 in Jewish households in San Antonio are single.
28% (339 households) of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 (Jewish singles) were
interested in singles programs in the past year, which is the third highest of about 25 comparison
Jewish communities. Included in the 28% are 21% (250 households) of households who did not
attend singles programs, which is the highest percentage among the comparison Jewish
communities. 7% (80 households) of households attended Jewish programs and 1% (9
households), non-Jewish programs. Thus, there is an unmet need for singles programs and a
strong tendency for Jewish singles who attended singles programs in the past year to attend Jewish
programs.




                                               v
                    Major Themes of the Study
Non-elderly single households are much less likely to be involved in the organized San Antonio
Jewish community (only 44%, the lowest percentage of all the household structures, are associated
with the Jewish community), where they would be likely to meet other Jewish singles. Non-elderly
single households are also the least likely of the household structures to feel very much or
somewhat a part of the San Antonio Jewish community (36%). This further highlights the need
for organized Jewish singles programs. The organized Jewish community (including synagogues,
the JCC, and the Jewish Federation) should coordinate efforts to support and enhance Jewish
singles programs.

Efforts to Integrate Intermarried Households
into the Jewish Community Are Necessary
for Married Couples of All Ages
Among about 50 comparison Jewish communities, San Antonio has an average overall couples
intermarriage rate (37%). Among about 35 comparison Jewish communities, San Antonio has an
average intermarriage rate for married couples in households age 35-49 (35%). But the
intermarriage rate for married couples in households age 50-64 (43%) is the fourth highest of
about 35 comparison Jewish communities, and the intermarriage rates for married couples in
households age 65-74 (36%) and age 75 and over (26%) are the highest and fourth highest,
respectively, of about 30 comparison Jewish communities.

Levels of religious practice, membership in the organized Jewish community, Jewish philanthropy,
and other involvement in Jewish activity are particularly low in intermarried households. 98% of
in-married households are involved Jewishly in some way, compared to only 80% of intermarried
households. And while many intermarried couples have at least some Jewish activity evident in
their household, on individual measures, intermarried households are generally much less
Jewishly-connected than in-married households. For example, 77% of in-married households
donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year, compared to only 34% of intermarried
households. Likewise, 78% of Jewish respondents in in-married households feel very much or
somewhat a part of the San Antonio Jewish community, compared to just 34% of Jewish
respondents in intermarried households.

Only 39% of children in intermarried households are being raised Jewish, which is about average
among about 50 comparison Jewish communities. In addition, 17% of Jewish children living in
married households are being raised in intermarried households, which is also about average
among about 40 comparison Jewish communities. Overall, 78% of children in Jewish households
are Jewish.

The importance of integrating intermarried households into the Jewish community, whether for
the benefit of the Jewish children being raised in these households or for the potential to influence
intermarried households to raise their children Jewishly, should not be overlooked. Likewise,
integrating intermarried households into the Jewish community would lead to greater support for
Jewish institutions, increased Jewish philanthropy, and stronger Jewish identity. Each synagogue
and Jewish organization needs to develop its own policies and programs for grappling with the
issue of intermarriage. Jewish identity initiatives must carefully balance "outreach" to the
intermarried population with "inreach" to moderately affiliated Jews.




                                                vi
                    Major Themes of the Study
JCCs and Synagogues Are Not Competing Institutions
Only 6% of Jewish households in San Antonio are JCC members but are not synagogue members,
and 29% are synagogue members but are not JCC members. 23% of households are members of
both a synagogue and the JCC, which is the fifth highest of about 40 comparison Jewish
communities. On the other hand, 42% of households are neither synagogue nor JCC members.
While the 42% is the sixth lowest of the comparison JCCs, synagogues and JCCs should
coordinate efforts to encourage membership in both institutions, perhaps by offering discounts for
joint synagogue and JCC membership.

While Synagogue Membership Is Relatively High in San Antonio,
a Coordinated Effort Should Be Considered
to Increase Synagogue Membership
In recognition of the importance of synagogues in promoting increased involvement in Jewish
philanthropy, volunteerism, and other positive measures of Jewish identity, a coordinated effort
to increase synagogue membership in San Antonio should be considered, despite the relatively
high level of synagogue membership compared to other Jewish communities. The 52% of Jewish
households who reported current synagogue membership is above average among about 50
comparison Jewish communities. Contributing to the high level of synagogue membership is that
62% of households in San Antonio have lived there for 20 or more years. The 60% current
synagogue membership of households with children is about average among about 40 comparison
Jewish communities. The 25% current synagogue membership among intermarried households is
about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities. Yet, the potential still exists for
increased synagogue membership across all segments of the community.

Current synagogue membership is low among households who live Outside Loop 1604 (36%),
households in residence in San Antonio for 0-4 years (33%), households with only adult children
(42%), non-elderly single households (32%), households earning an annual income under
$100,000 (42%), Just Jewish households (17%), intermarried households (25%), households in
which no adult visited Israel (21%), and households who did not donate to the Jewish Federation
in the past year (26%).

Attracting unaffiliated groups of Jews to synagogues in San Antonio can best be addressed through
a coordinated, community-wide effort. The fact that 29% of synagogue non-member households
reported that they plan to join a synagogue in the future suggests that significant success could
accrue from such efforts.

Income Is a Factor in Both Synagogue and JCC Membership
The strong relationship between household income and both synagogue and JCC membership
suggests that cost may be an important reason why more Jewish households in San Antonio are
not synagogue members or JCC members. Synagogue membership increases from 42% of
households earning an annual income under $100,000 to 60% of households earning $100,000-
$200,000 and 69% of households earning $200,000 and over. Similarly, JCC membership
increases from 17% of households earning an annual income under $25,000 to 24% of households
earning $25,000-$100,000, 34% of households earning $100,000-$200,000, and 43% of
households earning $200,000 and over. In addition, cost was reported as the major reason for not



                                              vii
                    Major Themes of the Study
joining a synagogue by 10% of respondents in synagogue non-member households and for not
joining the JCC by 13% of respondents in JCC non-member households. 42% of households are
neither synagogue nor JCC members.

Among other things, the San Antonio Jewish community should consider offering discounts for
joint synagogue and JCC membership as a way of encouraging membership in both institutions.
Also, synagogues and JCCs should examine their dues structures to determine financial strategies
to increase membership among lower income households while sustaining services.

Multiple Entry Points to the San Antonio Jewish Community
Need to Be Marketed
The organized Jewish community needs to market the many different ways to “be Jewish” to those
who are unaffiliated or only marginally involved. Most Jews who are unaffiliated or marginally
involved view Judaism only in terms of synagogue life and religious practice. The ethnic,
historical, social, and cultural connections should also be emphasized. Adult Jewish education
classes and programs, already attended by 23% of Jewish respondents in the past year, as well as
Jewish cultural and social events and programs, may attract some unaffiliated Jews.

While cost is sometimes a barrier to synagogue and JCC membership, Jewish organizations other
than synagogues and JCCs, such as Hadassah and B’nai B’rith, often provide relatively
inexpensive ways for Jews to become involved in Jewish life. In San Antonio, 29% of Jewish
households reported current membership in a Jewish organization, which is about average among
about 35 comparison Jewish communities. The organized Jewish community should promote these
types of organizations as important vehicles for involving persons who have specific Jewish
interests, but for whom cost of membership is an obstacle.

The JCC May Be Considered a Significant Success Story in San Antonio
The Barshop JCC may be considered a significant success in San Antonio. The 29% of Jewish
households who reported that they are current members of the JCC is the fourth highest of about
45 comparison JCCs. The 42% of Jewish households with children who are current JCC members
is the second highest of about 40 comparison Jewish communities. The 52% of Jewish households
who participated in or attended a program at the JCC in the past year is the third highest of about
45 comparison JCCs. The JCC’s 52% market share of the fitness facility and health club market
among Jewish households is the fifth highest of about 25 comparison JCCs. Only 3% of
respondents in JCC non-member households reported the quality of the programs as the major
reason for not joining the JCC. In addition, the 46% of respondents who are very familiar with
the JCC is above average among about 35 comparison JCCs, and 46% of respondents who are
very familiar or somewhat familiar with the JCC perceive the JCC as excellent.

According to the JCC Survey, from 2000-2007 membership in the JCC of Jewish households who
live in San Antonio increased by 9%, from 1,050 households in 2000 to 1,140 households in 2007.
Also, from 2000-2007 membership in the JCC of non-Jewish households who live in San Antonio
increased by 49%, from 1,150 households in 2000 to 1,710 households in 2007. These increases
may be attributable, in part, to the move of the JCC to a new building in a new area.




                                             viii
                    Major Themes of the Study
The Market Share for Jewish Preschool/Child Care Is High
in San Antonio
Of Jewish children age 0-5 in San Antonio who are enrolled in a preschool/child care program,
92% are enrolled in a Jewish preschool/child care program. The 92% Jewish market share is the
highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. This bodes well for the future of the
community, which should continue to devote resources to making certain that the Jewish
preschools present strong programs.

Attendance in Formal Jewish Education Programs as Children
Shows Strong Positive Correlations with Jewish Behavior as Adults
This study confirms the results of many other Jewish community studies that show strong positive
correlations between formal Jewish education (Jewish day school and synagogue school) as
children and Jewish behavior as adults, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these
relationships. In general, on most measures of Jewish identity (such as religious practice,
synagogue attendance, membership in the organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy
and volunteerism), formal Jewish education as children is positively correlated with adult Jewish
behavior. For example, 73% of Jewish households in San Antonio in which an adult attended a
Jewish day school as a child and 66% of households in which an adult attended a synagogue school
as a child are associated with the Jewish community (are members of a synagogue, JCC, or Jewish
organization), compared to only 42% of households in which no adult attended formal Jewish
education as a child. Similarly, 75% of married households in which an adult attended a Jewish
day school as a child and 52% of married households in which an adult attended a synagogue
school as a child are in-married, compared to just 26% of married households in which no adult
attended formal Jewish education as a child. In addition, 60% of respondents in households who
donated $100 and over to Jewish charities in the past year consider providing Jewish education for
children to be a very important motivation to donate to a Jewish organization, and only 9%
consider it to be not at all important. This argues that to build for the future and help preserve
Jewish identity and continuity, the Jewish Federation should continue to support Jewish day
schools and should consider extending additional support to synagogue schools.

Attendance in Informal Jewish Education Programs as Children
Shows Strong Positive Correlations with Jewish Behavior as Adults
This study confirms the results of many other Jewish community studies that show strong positive
correlations between informal Jewish education (specifically Jewish sleep away camp, Jewish
teenage youth group, and college Hillel/Chabad) as children/teenagers and Jewish behavior as
adults, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these relationships. In general, on most
measures of Jewish identity (such as religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership in the
organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy and volunteerism), informal Jewish
education as children/teenagers is positively correlated with adult Jewish behavior. For example,
63% of married Jewish households in San Antonio in which an adult participated in Hillel/Chabad
while in college (excluding the High Holidays) are in-married, compared to only 46% of married
households in which no adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college. This argues that to
build for the future and to preserve Jewish identity and continuity, the Jewish Federation should
support programs that provide assistance to these types of informal Jewish education.




                                              ix
                    Major Themes of the Study
Enrollment in Jewish Education Programs for Children,
Particularly Jewish Children Age 5-12, Needs to Be Increased
According to the Telephone Survey, 21% of Jewish children age 5-12 in San Antonio attend a
Jewish day school, which is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities.
According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, only 57% of Jewish children age 5-12 currently attend
any type of formal Jewish education, which is well below average among about 30 comparison
Jewish communities. On the other hand, 43% of Jewish teenagers age 13-17 currently attend
formal Jewish education, which is the fourth highest of the comparison Jewish communities. This
apparent success in retention after B’nai Mitzvah may be due to the success of the Chai High
School program.
Cost is shown to be a major deterrent to synagogue membership, and, hence, to a synagogue
school education for children, and cost (31%) is the major reason most commonly reported for not
sending Jewish children to a Jewish day school by respondents in households with Jewish children
age 0-17 (none of whom currently attend a Jewish day school, have attended in the past, or will
definitely attend in the future).
A coordinated, community-wide effort, which recognizes the importance of cost in these decisions,
should be undertaken to increase enrollment in Jewish education programs for elementary school
age children.

The Market Share for Jewish Day Camp Is High in San Antonio
Of Jewish children age 3-17 in San Antonio who attended or worked at a day camp this past
summer (the summer of 2006), 78% attended or worked at a Jewish day camp. The 78% Jewish
market share is the fourth highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities. This bodes well
for the future of the community, which should continue to devote resources to make certain that
the Jewish day camps present strong programs and to encourage attendance at Jewish day camps.

The Jewish Federation and Its Agencies Are Relatively Well Known
and Well Perceived in San Antonio
Compared to other Jewish communities, the percentage of respondents in Jewish households in
San Antonio who are very familiar with the Jewish Federation and its agencies is generally above
average, but some in the Jewish community are not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation and
many of its agencies. 16% of respondents are not at all familiar with the Barshop JCC; 24%, with
the Jewish Federation; 31%, with the Golden Manor Jewish Home for the Aged (25% of
respondents age 65 and over); 39%, with the Jewish Family and Children’s Service; and 41%,
with the Holocaust Museum and Memorial. In addition, 19% of respondents in households with
Jewish children are not at all familiar with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy.
Compared to other Jewish communities, the Jewish Federation and its agencies are relatively well
perceived by respondents who are familiar with them. For example, the 46% excellent perceptions
of the JCC is above average among about 35 comparison JCCs, and the percentages of excellent
perceptions for most of the other agencies queried are about average.
The Jewish Federation should consider a coordinated marketing campaign to further the profile
of the Jewish Federation and its agencies, which could lead to both increased usage of agency
services and greater participation in the Annual Campaign.



                                               x
                     Major Themes of the Study
The Need for Elderly Services Will Increase in the Future
A significant increase in the percentage of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is to be
expected in San Antonio. While there are about 1,300 persons age 65-74 in Jewish households,
there are about 2,100 persons age 55-64 in Jewish households. This suggests that over the next
decade an increase can be expected in the number of persons in Jewish households who will need
elderly services.

In-Home Health Care and Senior Transportation
Are the Two Most Needed Social Services among the Elderly,
but Most Elderly Needs Are Being Met
17% of Jewish households with elderly persons in San Antonio needed in-home health care in the
past year, and 7% needed senior transportation. 2%-4% of households with elderly persons needed
other social services for the elderly (assisted living facility, adult day care, nursing home care, and
home-delivered meals) in the past year.

3% of households with elderly persons reported unmet needs for senior transportation in the past
year; 2%, for an assisted living facility; 1%, for adult day care; and less than 1% for each of
in-home health care, nursing home care, and home-delivered meals. While most elderly needs are
being met, they are being met outside the Jewish community. For example, 16.2% of households
with elderly persons received in-home health care in the past year; 15.6% received it from non-
Jewish sources and 0.6%, from Jewish sources. The San Antonio Jewish community should
address the need for the provision of in-home health care and senior transportation (the two most
needed social services).

Organized Programs to Israel Should Continue to Be Supported
On most measures of Jewish identity (such as religious practice, synagogue attendance, membership
in the organized Jewish community, and Jewish philanthropy and volunteerism), this study shows
a significant positive correlation with visits to Israel, particularly if the Israel trip was sponsored by
a Jewish organization, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these relationships. For
example, 18% of married households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 23%
of married households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip are intermarried, compared
to 49% of married households in which no adult visited Israel. Similarly, 79% of households in
which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 61% of households in which an adult visited
Israel on a general trip are synagogue members, compared to only 40% of households in which
no adult visited Israel.
42% of Jewish households in San Antonio contain a member who visited Israel, which is about
average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities. The 17% of households with Jewish
children age 0-17 who have sent a Jewish child on a trip to Israel is above average among about
35 comparison Jewish communities. In addition, the 19% of households with Jewish children age
0-17 who will not seriously investigate sending Jewish teenagers on a trip to Israel is about
average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities.




                                                  xi
                    Major Themes of the Study
Only 32% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish charities in the past
year consider supporting educational trips to Israel to be a very important motivation to donate to
a Jewish organization, and 23% consider it not at all important. Apparently, many donors do not
appreciate the impact that trips to Israel have on building and strengthening Jewish identity. Trips
to Israel, particularly for teenagers and young adults, should continue to be promoted and
supported so that the Jewish community can capitalize on the transforming experience that a trip
to Israel can offer.
The 55% of Jewish respondents who are extremely or very emotionally attached to Israel is the
fifth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. Organized programs should be
considered that bring together emotionally attached participants who have visited Israel in the past
with less involved Jews.

Anti-Semitism Is Not the Issue It Once Was, but Is Still a Concern,
Particularly as Experienced by Children
14% of Jewish respondents in San Antonio personally experienced anti-Semitism in the local
community in the past year, which is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities. The 26% of respondents who perceive a great deal or moderate amount of anti-
Semitism in the local community is the second lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities.
The 4% of respondents who perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in the local community is the
third lowest of the comparison Jewish communities, and the 16% of respondents who perceive no
anti-Semitism at all in the local community is the third highest of the comparison Jewish
communities.
It is therefore surprising to find that 34% of households with Jewish children age 6-17 reported
that a Jewish child age 6-17 experienced anti-Semitism in the local community (mainly at school)
in the past year, which is the highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities. The Jewish
community should consider discussion with local school boards about the issue.
63% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish charities in the past year
consider combating anti-Semitism to be a very important motivation to donate to a Jewish
organization, which is below average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities. However,
of the eight philanthropic motivations queried in San Antonio, the 63% is the second highest
percentage.

Both the Internet and the Jewish Journal of San Antonio
Should Be Used to Communicate with the Jewish Community
The Internet is quickly becoming an important and effective medium for communication and
education in the San Antonio Jewish community. 59% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for
Jewish-related information in the past year, which is the highest of about 20 comparison Jewish
communities. Included in the 59% are 37% of respondents who used the Internet for information
about the San Antonio Jewish community, which, in turn, includes 13% who visited the Jewish
Federation web site in the past year (the highest percentage of about ten comparison Jewish
communities). Younger respondents were more likely to use the Internet for Jewish-related
information in the past year than were older respondents. Internet usage decreases from 79% of
respondents under age 35 to 74% of respondents age 35-49, 67% of respondents age 50-64, 43%
of respondents age 65-74, and 32% of respondents age 75 and over.


                                               xii
                    Major Themes of the Study
The Jewish Journal of San Antonio is always or usually read by 49% of Jewish respondents, which
is the second highest of about 20 comparison Jewish communities, and is always, usually, or
sometimes read by 71% of respondents. Yet, readership increases significantly with age. The
percentage of respondents who always or usually read the Jewish Journal increases from 26% of
respondents under age 35 to 45% of respondents age 35-64, 55% of respondents age 65-74, and
64% of respondents age 75 and over.

In view of the relatively high percentages of respondents who use the Internet for Jewish-related
information and who read the local Jewish newspaper, both media are effective sources of
information for the San Antonio Jewish community. However, communicating with younger
residents is more effective via the Internet, while communicating with older residents is more
effective using the Jewish newspaper.

Significant Emphasis on Endowment Giving Is Warranted
in San Antonio
59% of Jewish respondents age 65 and over in San Antonio feel very much or somewhat a part
of the San Antonio Jewish community. 40% of respondents age 65 and over are very familiar with
the Jewish Federation of San Antonio. 43% of respondents age 65 and over who are very familiar
or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation perceive it as excellent, and an additional 47%
perceive it as good. Philanthropic giving among older Jews is high. 72% of households age 65 and
over donated to Jewish charities in the past year. 41% of households age 65 and over donated $100
and over to the Jewish Federation in the past year, and 41% donated $100 and over to other
Jewish charities (Jewish charities other than Jewish Federations). 12% of households age 65 and
over donated $1,000 and over to the Jewish Federation in the past year, and 8% donated $1,000
and over to other Jewish charities. 40% of households who donated to the Jewish Federation in
the past year are age 65 and over.

14% of respondents age 50 and over do not have wills; 67% have wills that contain no charitable
provisions; 14% have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities; and 6% have wills that
contain provisions for non-Jewish charities only. 6% of respondents age 65 and over do not have
wills; 72% have wills that contain no charitable provisions; 16% have wills that contain provisions
for Jewish charities; and 6% have wills that contain provisions for non-Jewish charities only.

Only 60% of elderly respondents are aware that the Jewish Federation has a department that helps
with estate planning and planned giving. The Jewish Federation should capitalize on the proclivity
of the elderly to donate to Jewish charities. Emphasis should be placed on enhancing programs
which communicate the opportunities for, and advantages of, endowment giving.

The Jewish Federation Should Encourage Volunteerism
in the San Antonio Jewish Community
33% of Jewish respondents in San Antonio volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past year,
and 46% volunteered for non-Jewish organizations (including 26% who volunteered for non-
Jewish organizations but not for Jewish organizations). The 33% of respondents who volunteered
for Jewish organizations and the 46% who volunteered for non-Jewish organizations in the past
year are both about average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities. The San Antonio
Jewish community has an above average percentage of retired adults in Jewish households (26%)


                                             xiii
                    Major Themes of the Study
who can serve as a significant resource to the volunteer community. Jewish agencies should
promote volunteer opportunities, particularly within the Jewish community.

The Annual Campaign of the Jewish Federation of San Antonio
Should Be Oriented Toward the Motivations for Giving
Identified by the Study
58%-65% of respondents in Jewish households in San Antonio who donated $100 and over to
Jewish charities in the past year consider providing social services for the Jewish elderly,
combating anti-Semitism, providing Jewish education for children, and supporting the people of
Israel to be very important motivations to donate to a Jewish organization. 51% of respondents
consider helping Jews overseas who are in distress and 43% consider providing individual and
family counseling for Jews to be very important motivations. Finally, about one-third of
respondents consider providing social, recreational, and cultural activities for Jews and supporting
educational trips to Israel to be very important motivations.
16% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to the Jewish Federation of San
Antonio in the past year would donate more if more of the money went to Israel and overseas,
while 35% would donate more if more of the money went to local needs. 25% of respondents
would donate more if they had more say over how the money was spent; 22%, if they were asked
by a close friend; 13%, if they were asked in person; and 3%, if they received more recognition
for their donation.
Campaign marketing efforts that are oriented toward the community’s motivations for giving and
the circumstances under which donors might increase their level of giving may lead to a more
successful campaign.

The Jewish Federation of San Antonio Is One of the More Successful
Jewish Federations in the Country
The Jewish Federation of San Antonio is a success. 75% of Jewish households in San Antonio are
on the Jewish Federation mailing list, the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish
communities. The 53% of households who reported that they donated to the Jewish Federation in
the past year is the fifth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities. The 17% of donor
households who donated $1,000 and over to the Jewish Federation in the past year is the seventh
highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities. The 39% of households who reported that
they were not asked to donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year is the fifth lowest of about
35 comparison Jewish communities. Of households asked to donate to the Jewish Federation in
the past year, the 13% who did not donate is the fourth lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities.

The 32% of households who are very familiar with the local Jewish Federation is the fifth highest
of about 30 comparison Jewish communities. The 24% of respondents who are not at all familiar
with the local Jewish Federation is the third lowest of the comparison Jewish communities. The
33% excellent perceptions of the local Jewish Federation by respondents who are very familiar
or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation is about average among about 30 comparison
Jewish communities.




                                              xiv
                   Major Themes of the Study
The average donation per household to the Annual Campaign of $479 is about average among
about 45 comparison Jewish communities. Adjusted for inflation, the Jewish Federation Annual
Campaign increased by 2% from 1996-2006. In addition, over the past decade, the Jewish
Federation and its agencies coordinated capital campaigns in which a total of $19,983,000
($25,249,000, adjusted for inflation) was raised.

The Jewish Federation of San Antonio is the central address of the San Antonio Jewish
community. However, despite its overall success, the 16% decrease (362 donors) in the number
of Jewish donors to the Annual Campaign from 1996-2006 should be cause for concern by the
leadership.




                                           xv
Notes




 xvi
                                   Major Findings
Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population
 1. 11,200 persons live in 4,500 Jewish households in San Antonio. Of the 11,200 persons in Jewish
     households, 9,100 persons (81%) are Jewish.
 2. 2,540 persons live Inside Loop 410 in 1,120 Jewish households. 23% of persons in Jewish
     households are not Jewish. Thus, there are 1,960 Jews who live Inside Loop 410.
 3. 6,630 persons live Between 410 & 1604 in 2,600 Jewish households. 17% of persons in Jewish
     households are not Jewish. Thus, there are 5,510 Jews who live Between 410 & 1604.
 4. 2,030 persons live Outside Loop 1604 in 780 Jewish households. 20% of persons in Jewish
     households are not Jewish. Thus, there are 1,630 Jews who live Outside Loop 1604.
 5. 22% of Jews live Inside Loop 410; 61%, Between 410 & 1604; and 18%, Outside Loop 1604.
 6. 1% of households in San Antonio are Jewish households.
 7. In 2000, 11,900 persons lived in 4,800 Jewish households in San Antonio.
 8. The number of persons in Jewish households decreased from 11,900 persons in 2000 to 11,200
     persons in 2007.
 9. From 2000-2007, the percentage of Jewish households who live Inside Loop 410 decreased from
     31% to 25% and Between 410 & 1604, from 59% to 58%. The percentage who live Outside Loop
     1604 increased from 10% to 17%.
10. In addition to the Jewish population in Bexar County, about 570 Jewish households live in the seven-
     county surrounding area (Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson
     counties), with about 1,400 persons in Jewish households and 1,000 Jews. More than 40% of this
     total live in Comal County; 20% in live Guadalupe; and 15% live in Kendall. Comal County has
     shown some increase in Jewish population since 2000. The other counties have shown no change.
11. 16% of Jewish households live in one zip code area (78230) and 36% live in one of three zip code
     areas (78230, 78209, and 78248).

Geographic Profile
12. 75% of Jewish households are on the Jewish Federation of San Antonio mailing list.
13. 21% of adults in Jewish households were locally born (born in San Antonio).
14. 12% (1,077 adults) of adults in Jewish households were foreign born.
15. 2% (86 households) of households are from the Former Soviet Union.
16. 1% of households are part-year households (live in San Antonio for less than 10 months of the year).
17. 19% of respondents moved to San Antonio from other parts of Texas; 10%, from New York;
    7%, from California; 4%, from Florida; and 4%, from Illinois. 14% of respondents have always
    lived in San Antonio.
18. 13% of households have lived in San Antonio for 0-4 years; 62%, for 20 or more years.
19. 28% of households have lived at their current address for 0-4 years; 25%, for 20 or more years.
20. 90% of households own their home.
21. An average of between 50 and 115 households will move out of San Antonio each year within the
    next three years (the out-migration rate). An average of 115 households in San Antonio moved to
    San Antonio each year during the past five years (the in-migration rate). Assuming that the current
    rate of in-migration continues for the next few years, these data suggest that the number of Jewish
    households in San Antonio will probably not change significantly during the next few years as a
    result of migration into and out of San Antonio.
22. 39% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have at least one adult child who has
    established his/her own home in San Antonio.


                                                  1
                                  Major Findings
Demographic Profile
23. 21% (2,296 children) of persons in Jewish households are age 0-17, of whom 78% (1,784 children)
    are being raised Jewish.
24. 24% (2,666 persons) of persons in Jewish households are age 65 and over.
25. 12% (1,333 persons) of persons in Jewish households are age 75 and over.
26. The median age is 50 years.
27. The average household size is 2.49 persons.
28. 22% of households contain 1 person; 42%, 2 persons; 12%, 3 persons; and 24%, 4 or more
    persons.
29. 27% of households are households with children age 0-17 at home; 8% are households with only
    adult children age 18-29 at home; 36% are married households with no children at home; 22% are
    single person households; and 8% are other household structures.
30. 27% (416 children) of children age 0-12 in Jewish households live in households in which both
    parents (or the parent in a single parent household) are employed full time.
31. 9% (200 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in single parent households.
32. 38% (866 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in households in which an adult
    is or was divorced.
33. 21% (558 persons) of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households live alone.
34. 27% (361 persons) of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households live alone.
35. 70% of adults in Jewish households are currently married; 7% are currently divorced.
36. 30% (2,195 adults) of Jewish adults in Jewish households are single, of whom 45% are under age
    50.
37. 75% of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households have a four-year college degree or higher,
    including 36% with a graduate degree.
38. 60% of adults in Jewish households are in the labor force; 26% are retired.
39. 1% (62 adults) of adults are active military and 7% (588 adults) are retired military.
40. The median value of homes owned by Jewish households is $228,000.
41. The 2006 median household income is $90,000.
42. 43% of households earn an annual income of $100,000 or more.
43. 8% (356 households) of households are low income households (earned under $25,000 in 2006).
44. 1.4% (63 households) of households reported a household income that was below the Federal
    poverty levels.

Religious Profile
45. 4% of Jewish respondents identify as Orthodox; 25%, Conservative; 2%, Reconstructionist;
     39%, Reform; and 30%, Just Jewish.
46. 68% of households have a mezuzah on the front door.
47. 69% of households always or usually participate in a Passover Seder.
48. 70% of households always or usually light Chanukah candles.
49. 20% of households always or usually light Sabbath candles.
50. 10% of households keep a kosher home; 5% of respondents keep kosher in and out of the home.
51. 2% of respondents refrain from using electricity on the Sabbath.
52. 26% of households always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home.
53. 25% of Jewish respondents attend synagogue services once per month or more.
54. 25% of Jewish respondents never attend synagogue services (or attend only for special occasions).


                                                2
                                  Major Findings
55. 50% of married couples in Jewish households are in-married; 13% are conversionary in-married;
    and 37% are intermarried.
56. 39% of children age 0-17 in intermarried households are being raised Jewish.
57. 7% (628 persons) of Jewish persons are Jews-by-Choice.

Membership Profile
58. 62% of households are associated with the Jewish community in that someone in the household is
    a member of a synagogue, the Jewish Community Center (JCC), or a Jewish organization.
59. According to the Telephone Survey, 52% of households are current synagogue members.
60. According to the Synagogue Survey, 50% (2,241 households) of households are current synagogue
    members, of whom 17% are members of an Orthodox synagogue; 25%, a Conservative synagogue;
    2%, a Reconstructionist synagogue; 51%, a Reform synagogue; and 5%, other synagogues.
61. 83% of households are synagogue members at some time during their adult lives.
62. The major reason for not joining a synagogue most commonly reported by respondents in synagogue
    non-member households is not religious (30%). 10% of respondents reported cost; 9%, quality of
    the local synagogues; and 6%, distance from home.
63. According to the Telephone Survey, 29% of households are current members of the Barshop JCC.
64. The major reason for not joining the JCC most commonly reported by respondents in JCC non-
    member households is no need for the services offered (31%). 24% of respondents reported distance
    from home; 13%, cost; 5%, lack of information about the JCC; 5%, lack of time; and 3%, quality
    of the program.
65. 52% of households participated in or attended a program sponsored by the JCC in the past year.
66. 38% of non-JCC member households are members of a fitness facility or health club.
61. The JCC has a 52% market share of the fitness facility market among Jewish households.
67. 29% of households are current members of a Jewish organization.
68. 28% of Jewish respondents feel very much a part of the San Antonio Jewish community;
    29%, somewhat; 26%, not very much; and 18%, not at all.

Jewish Education of Adults
69. 83% of born or raised Jewish adults received some formal Jewish education as children.
70. 10% of born or raised Jewish adults attended a Jewish day school as children.
71. 32% of born or raised Jewish adults attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as children.
72. 46% of born or raised Jewish adults were active in a Jewish youth group as teenagers.
73. 25% of born or raised Jewish adults who attended college participated in Hillel/Chabad while in
     college (excluding the High Holidays).
74. 59% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past year.
75. 37% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for information about the San Antonio Jewish
     community in the past year, and 13% visited the Jewish Federation web site in the past year.
76. 23% of Jewish respondents attended an adult Jewish education class or program in the past year.

Jewish Education of Children
77. 64% of Jewish children age 0-5 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who already attend kindergarten)
     attend a Jewish preschool/child care program; 5%, a non-Jewish preschool/child care program; and
     30% do not attend a preschool/child care program.




                                                3
                                      Major Findings
78. 92% of Jewish children age 0-5 who attend a preschool/child care program attend a Jewish
    preschool/child care program.
79. 21% of Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend
    kindergarten) attend a Jewish day school; 8%, a non-Jewish private school; and 71%, a public
    school.
80. 72% of Jewish children age 5-12 who attend a private school attend a Jewish day school.
81. 46% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 either currently have a Jewish child in Jewish day
    school, have sent a child in the past, will definitely send a child in the future, or did or will seriously
    investigate sending a child to a Jewish day school. Thus, 54% of households with Jewish children
    age 0-17 are not in the Jewish day school market.
82. Tuition cost, belief in public schools/ethnically mixed environment, and quality of other private or
    public schools are the major reasons most commonly reported for not sending Jewish children age
    0-17 to a Jewish day school.
83. According to the Telephone Survey, 77% of Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age
    5 who do not yet attend kindergarten) and 39% of Jewish children age 13-17 currently attend formal
    Jewish education. According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 57% of Jewish children age 5-12 and
    43% of Jewish children age 13-17 currently attend formal Jewish education.
84. 89% of Jewish children age 13-17 have received some formal Jewish education, including 26% at
    a Jewish day school.
85. 33% of Jewish children age 3-17 attended or worked at a Jewish day camp this past summer (the
    summer of 2006); 10%, a non-Jewish day camp; and 58% did not attend or work at a day camp.
86. 14% of Jewish children age 6-17 attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp this past summer
    (the summer of 2006); 5%, a non-Jewish sleep away camp; and 80% did not attend or work at a
    sleep away camp.
87. According to the Telephone Survey, 48% of Jewish children age 13-17 participate in a Jewish
    teenage youth group. According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 26% of Jewish children age 13-17
    participate in a Jewish teenage youth group.
88. 72% of Jewish children age 0-17 are currently involved in some type of formal or informal Jewish
    education.

Jewish Agencies–Familiarity
89. 46% of respondents are very familiar, 38% are somewhat familiar, and 16% are not at all familiar
     with the Barshop JCC..
90. 36% of respondents are very familiar, 33% are somewhat familiar, and 31% are not at all familiar
     with the Golden Manor Jewish Home for the Aged.
91. 32% of respondents are very familiar, 44% are somewhat familiar, and 24% are not at all familiar
     with the Jewish Federation of San Antonio.
92. 23% of respondents are very familiar, 38% are somewhat familiar, and 39% are not at all familiar
     with the Jewish Family and Children’s Service.
93. 21% of respondents are very familiar, 39% are somewhat familiar, and 41% are not at all familiar
     with the Holocaust Museum and Memorial at the Jewish Campus.
94. 21% of respondents are very familiar, 34% are somewhat familiar, and 45% are not at all familiar
     with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy.
95. 39% of respondents in households with Jewish children are very familiar, 42% are somewhat
     familiar, and 19% are not at all familiar with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy.


                                                     4
                                     Major Findings
96. 92% of respondents are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of the agencies queried.

Jewish Agencies–Perception
97. 46% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the JCC perceive it as
     excellent; 47%, good; 6%, fair; and 1%, poor.
98. 40% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Golden Manor Jewish
     Home for the Aged perceive it as excellent; 46%, good; 9%, fair; and 5%, poor.
99. 33% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation of San
     Antonio perceive it as excellent; 53%, good; 12%, fair; and 3%, poor.
100. 36% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Family and
     Children’s Service perceive it as excellent; 47%, good; 13%, fair; and 4%, poor.
101. 42% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Holocaust Museum and
     Memorial at the Jewish Campus perceive it as excellent; 49%, good; 8%, fair; and 1%, poor.
102. 35% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy
     perceive it as excellent; 50%, good; 13%, fair; and 2%, poor.
103. 31% of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very familiar or somewhat familiar
     with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy perceive it as excellent; 48%, good; 18%, fair; and 3%, poor.

Social Service Needs
104. 17% (761 households) of households contain a health-limited member, including 5% who contain
     a health-limited member who needs daily assistance.
105. 28% (339 households) of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 were interested in singles
     programs in the past year.
106. 18% of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 have used a Jewish Internet dating service
     at some time.
107. 14% (134 households) of households with Jewish children age 0-17 needed programs for Jewish
     children with learning disabilities or other special needs such as developmental disabilities in the past
     year.
108. 13% (594 households) of households needed help in coordinating services for an elderly or disabled
     person in the past year.
109. 10% (468 households) of households needed marital, family, or personal counseling in the past year.
110. 10% (310 households) of households with adults age 18-64 needed help in finding a job or choosing
     an occupation in the past year.
111. 2% (77 households) of households needed financial assistance in the past year.
112. 17% (301 households) of households with elderly persons needed in-home health care in the past
     year.
113. 7% (119 households) of households with elderly persons needed senior transportation in the past
     year.
114. 4% (68 households) of households with elderly persons needed an assisted living facility in the past
     year.
115. 3% (57 households) of households with elderly persons needed adult day care in the past year.
116. 2% (33 households) of households with elderly persons needed nursing home care in the past year.
117. 2% (29 households) of households with elderly persons needed home-delivered meals in the past
     year.




                                                    5
                                    Major Findings
118. 13% of households in which the respondent is age 40 or over have an elderly relative who lives
     outside the respondent’s home and who in some way depends upon the household for care.
119. 46% of Jewish respondents age 40 and over would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care
     facilities; 26% would somewhat prefer them; 24% would have no preference; and 4% would rather
     not use.

Israel
120. 42% of households contain a member who visited Israel.
121. 20% of households contain a member who visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 22%, on a general trip.
122. 17% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish child to Israel, including 6%,
     on a Jewish trip and 11%, on a general trip.
123. 23% of Jewish respondents are extremely emotionally attached to Israel; 32%, very attached; 33%,
     somewhat attached; and 12%, not attached.

Anti-Semitism
124. 14% of Jewish respondents personally experienced anti-Semitism in San Antonio in the past year.
125. 34% of households with Jewish children age 6-17 contain a Jewish child age 6-17 who experienced
     anti-Semitism in San Antonio in the past year, mainly at school.
126. 4% of respondents perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in San Antonio; 23%, a moderate amount;
     57%, a little; and 16%, none at all.

The Media
127. 41% of Jewish respondents always read the Jewish Journal of San Antonio; 8%, usually;
     22%, sometimes; and 29%, never.
128. 55% of Jewish respondents always read the San Antonio Express-News; 8%, usually;
     27%, sometimes; and 9%, never.
129. 14% of Jewish respondents always read the religion page of the San Antonio Express-News;
     6%, usually; 36%, sometimes; and 44%, never.
130. 33% of Jewish respondents who always, usually, or sometimes read the Jewish Journal of San
     Antonio perceive it as excellent; 53%, good; 12%, fair; and 1%, poor.

Philanthropic Profile–Behavior
131. 91% of households donated to one or more charities (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in the past year.
132. According to the Telephone Survey, 53% of households donated to the Jewish Federation of San
     Antonio (JFSA) in the past year. According to the Jewish Federation Survey, 32%of households
     donated to JFSA in the past year.
133. According to the Telephone Survey, 47% of households did not donate to JFSA in the past year;
     18% donated under $100; 21%, $100-$500; and 15%, $500 and over.
134. 55% of households donated to other Jewish charities (Jewish charities other than Jewish Federations)
     in the past year.
135. 45% of households did not donate to other Jewish charities in the past year; 15% donated under
     $100; 24%, $100-$500; and 17%, $500 and over.
136. 69% of households donated to Jewish charities (including Jewish Federations) in the past year.
137. 82% of households donated to non-Jewish charities in the past year.




                                                  6
                                    Major Findings
138. 19% of households did not donate to non-Jewish charities in the past year; 24% donated under $100;
     31%, $100-$500; and 27%, $500 and over.
139. 39% of households were not asked to donate to JFSA in the past year; 8% were asked, but did not
     donate. 13% of households asked to donate to JFSA in the past year did not donate.
140. 56% of households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year made their donation by
     telephone;, 22%, by mail; 14%, in person; 7%, at an event; and 2% just sent in their donation.
141. 35% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year by
     telephone, in-person, or at an event perceived the solicitation as excellent, 55%, good, 8%, fair, and
     1%, poor.
142. According to the Jewish Federation Survey, the JFSA Annual Campaign raised $2,153,750 from
     1,437 households in 2006. Given 4,500 households, the average donation per household is $479.
143. 16% of households donated to other Jewish charities but not to Jewish Federations in the past year;
     13% donated to Jewish Federations but not to other Jewish charities; 40% donated to both Jewish
     Federations and other Jewish charities; and 32% did not donate to any Jewish charities.
144. 22% of households donated to non-Jewish charities but not to Jewish charities in the past year;
     9% donated to Jewish charities but not to non-Jewish charities; 60% donated to both Jewish and
     non-Jewish charities; and 9% did not donate to any charities.
145. Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past year, 28% were donated to JFSA;
     0%, to other Jewish Federations; 32%, to other Jewish charities; and 40%, to non-Jewish charities.
146. Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households in the past year, 60% were donated to Jewish
     charities (including JFSA).
147. Of all charitable dollars donated by Jewish households to Jewish charities in the past year,
     47% were donated to JFSA.
148. 17% of households donated to a charity over the Internet in the past year, including 5% to a Jewish
     charity.
149. 14% of respondents age 50 and over do not have wills; 67% have wills that contain no charitable
     provisions; 14% have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities; and 6% have wills that
     contain provisions for non-Jewish charities only.
150. 33% of Jewish respondents volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past year and 46%, for non-
     Jewish organizations.
151. 13% of Jewish respondents volunteered for Jewish organizations only in the past year; 26%, for
     non-Jewish organizations only; 19%, for both Jewish and non-Jewish organizations; and 41% did
     not volunteer for any organizations.

Philanthropic Profile–Attitudes
152. 65% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “providing social services for the Jewish elderly” to be a very
     important motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (30%, somewhat important; 5%, not at all
     important).
153. 63% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “combating anti-Semitism” to be a very important motivation to
     donate to a Jewish organization (30%, somewhat important; 7%, not at all important).
154. 60% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “providing Jewish education for children” to be a very important
     motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (31%, somewhat important; 9%, not at all important).


                                                   7
                                    Major Findings
155. 58% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “supporting the people of Israel” to be a very important
     motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (32%, somewhat important; 10%, not at all
     important).
156. 51% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “helping Jews overseas who are in distress” to be a very important
     motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (43%, somewhat important; 6%, not at all important).
157. 43% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “providing individual and family counseling for Jews” to be a
     very important motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (42%, somewhat important; 15%, not
     at all important).
158. 33% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “providing social, recreational, and cultural activities for Jews”
     to be a very important motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (51%, somewhat important;
     16%, not at all important).
159. 32% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to Jewish Federations or other Jewish
     charities in the past year consider “supporting educational trips to Israel” to be a very important
     motivation to donate to a Jewish organization (45%, somewhat important; 23%, not at all
     important).
160. 35% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year would
     donate more to JFSA if “more of the money went to local needs.”
161. 25% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year would
     donate more to JFSA if they “had more say over how the money was spent.”
162. 22% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year would
     donate more to JFSA if they “were asked by a close friend.”
163. 16% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year would
     donate more to JFSA if “more of the money went to needs in Israel and overseas.”
164. 13% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year would
     donate more to JFSA if they “were asked in person.”
165. 3% of respondents in households who donated $100 and over to JFSA in the past year would donate
     more to JFSA if they “received more recognition for their donation.”




                                                   8
    Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities
 The statements presented below illustrate the most important ways in which San Antonio differs from
 other Jewish communities. The Main Report contains a complete listing of the comparison Jewish
 communities to which San Antonio is compared in each of the statements below. The approximate
 number of comparison Jewish communities (comparisons) to which San Antonio is compared is shown
 in parentheses.

Compared to other Jewish communities, San Antonio has:

Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population
1. The 2nd lowest percentage of households in the local area who are Jewish households
     (1%, 45 comparisons).
2. The 4th highest percentage of households who are on the Jewish Federation mailing list
     (75%, 30 comparisons).

Geographic Profile
3. The lowest percentage of households in residence for less than ten months of the year
    (1%, 30 comparisons).
4. The 6th lowest percentage of households at their current address for 0-4 years
    (28%, 35 comparisons).
5. The 4th highest percentage of households who own their home (90%, 35 comparisons).

Demographic Profile
6. The 3rd lowest number of Jewish children age 0-5 (428 Jewish children, 45 comparisons).
7. The 6th lowest number of Jewish children age 6-12 (783 Jewish children, 45 comparisons).
8. The 6th lowest number of Jewish children age 13-17 (573 Jewish children, 45 comparisons).
9. The 5th lowest number of Jewish children age 0-17 (1,784 Jewish children, 45 comparisons).
10. The 2nd highest percentage of households with only adult children age 18 and over at home (13%,
    35 comparisons).
11. The lowest percentage of married households under age 35 with no children at home
    (0%, 35 comparisons).
12. The 3rd highest percentage of children age 0-17 in Jewish households who live in households in
    which an adult is or was divorced (38%, 30 comparisons).
13. The 6th lowest percentage of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households living alone (27%,
    35 comparisons).
14. The 3rd lowest percentage of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households with a high school degree
    or less (10%, 35 comparisons).
15. The 4th highest percentage of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households with a four-year college
    degree or higher (75%, 35 comparisons).
16. The 6th highest percentage of adults age 25 and over in Jewish households with a graduate degree
    (36%, 35 comparisons).
17. The 3rd lowest percentage of households earning an annual income under $25,000 (8%,
    25 comparisons).
18. The 5th highest percentage of households earning an annual income of $100,000 and over (43%,
    25 comparisons).



                                                 9
     Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities
19. The 3rd highest percentage of households earning an annual income of $200,000 and over (17%,
    20 comparisons).

Religious Profile
20. The 5th highest percentage of Jewish respondents under age 35 who attend synagogue services once
     per month or more (24%, 30 comparisons).
21. The 4th highest percentage of married couples in households age 50-64 who are intermarried
     (43%, 35 comparisons).
22. The highest percentage of married couples in households age 65-74 who are intermarried
     (36%, 30 comparisons).
23. The 4th highest percentage of married couples in households age 75 and over who are intermarried
     (26%, 30 comparisons).
24. The 5th highest percentage of Jewish children in married households being raised in conversionary
     in-married households (26%, 40 comparisons).
25. The 4th highest percentage of Jewish persons in Jewish households who are Jews-by-Choice (7%,
     35 comparisons).

Membership Profile
26. The 4th highest percentage of households who are members of a synagogue at some time during their
    adult lives (83%, 30 comparisons).
27. The 5th highest percentage of households who are members of a local synagogue, according to the
    Synagogue Survey (50%, 30 comparisons).
28. The 7th highest percentage of synagogue member households who are members of an Orthodox
    synagogue (17%, 35 comparisons).
29. The 3rd lowest percentage of synagogue member households who are members of a local
    Conservative synagogue (25%, 35 comparisons).
30. The 4th highest percentage of households who reported current membership in the local JCC
    (29%, 45 comparison JCCs).
31. The 2nd highest percentage of households with children who are current members of the local JCC
    (42%, 40 comparison JCCs).
32. The 3rd highest percentage of households who are members of the local JCC, according to the JCC
    Survey (25%, 25 comparisons).
33. The 5th highest percentage of households who both synagogue and JCC members (23%,
    40 comparison JCCs).
34. The 6th lowest percentage of households who are neither synagogue nor JCC members
    (42%, 40 comparison JCCs).
35. The 3rd highest percentage of households who participated in or attended a program sponsored by
    the local JCC in the past year (52%, 45 comparison JCCs).
36. The 5th highest market share for the JCC of the fitness facility and health club market among Jewish
    households (52%, 25 comparison JCCs).

Jewish Education of Adults
37. The 5th highest percentage of born or raised Jewish adults who received some formal Jewish
     education as a child (83%, 35 comparisons).




                                                10
     Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities
38. The highest percentage of Jewish respondents who used the Internet for Jewish-related information
    in the past year (59%, 20 comparisons).

Jewish Education of Children
39. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 0-5 who attend a Jewish preschool/child care program
     (64%, 30 comparisons).
40. The lowest percentage of Jewish children age 0-5 who attend a non-Jewish preschool/child care
     program (5%, 30 comparisons).
41. The 4th lowest percentage of Jewish children age 0-5 who do not attend a preschool/child care
     program (30%, 30 comparisons).
42. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 0-5 in a preschool/child care program who attend a
     Jewish preschool/child care program (92%, 30 comparisons).
43. The 4th highest percentage of Jewish children age 13-17 who currently attend formal Jewish
     education according to the Jewish Institutions Survey (43%, 30 comparisons).
44. The highest percentage of Jewish children age 3-17 who attended or worked at a Jewish day camp
     this past summer (summer of 2006) (33%, 25 comparisons).
45. The 4th highest percentage of Jewish children age 3-17 attending or working at a day camp this past
     summer (summer of 2006) who attended or worked at a Jewish day camp (78%, 25 comparisons).

Jewish Agencies
46. The 5th highest percentage of households who are very familiar with the Jewish Federation (32%,
     30 comparisons).
47. The 4th highest percentage of households who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with Jewish
     Family and Children’s Service who perceive it as fair or poor (17%, 30 comparisons).
48. The 6th highest percentage of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very familiar
     with the local Jewish day school (49%, 40 comparisons).

Social Service Needs
49. The 3rd highest percentage of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 who were interested
     in singles programs in the past year (28%, 25 comparisons).
50. The highest percentage of households with Jewish children age 0-17 who needed programs for
     Jewish children with learning disabilities or other special needs such as developmental disabilities
     in the past year (14%, 25 comparisons).
51. The 4th lowest percentage of households with elderly persons who needed nursing home care in the
     past year (2%, 30 comparisons).

Israel
52. The 3rd highest percentage of households with Jewish children age 0-17 who have sent a Jewish child
     to Israel on a general trip (11%, 30 comparisons).
53. The 5th highest percentage of Jewish respondents who are extremely/very emotionally attached to
     Israel (55%, 30 comparisons).




                                                 11
     Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities
Anti-Semitism
54. The highest percentage of households with Jewish children age 6-17 in which a Jewish child age
     6-17 experienced anti-Semitism in the local community in the past year (34%, 25 comparisons).
55. The 2nd lowest percentage of respondents who perceive a great deal or moderate amount of
     anti-Semitism in the local community (26%, 30 comparisons).

56. The 3rd lowest percentage of respondents who perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in the local
    community (4%, 30 comparisons).
57. The 3rd highest percentage of respondents who perceive no anti-Semitism at all in the local
    community (16%, 30 comparisons).

The Media
58. The 2nd highest percentage of Jewish respondents who always or usually read a local Jewish
    newspaper (49%, 20 comparisons).
59. The 2nd lowest percentage of Jewish respondents who never read a local Jewish newspaper
    (29%, 30 comparisons).

Philanthropic Profile
60. The 5th lowest percentage of households who were not asked to donate to the local Jewish Federation
     in the past year (39%, 35 comparisons).
61. The 4th lowest percentage of households asked who did not donate to the local Jewish Federation in
     the past year (13%, 35 comparisons).
62. The 2nd highest percentage of households age 35-49 who donated to the local Jewish Federation in
     the past year (54%, 35 comparisons).
63. According to the Telephone Survey, the 5th highest percentage of households who donated to the local
     Jewish Federation in the past year (53%, 45 comparisons).
64. Of households who donated to the local Jewish Federation in the past year, the 3rd lowest percentage
     who donated under $100 (33%, 35 comparisons).
65. Of households who donated to the local Jewish Federation in the past year, the 6th highest percentage
     who donated $1,000 and over (17%, 35 comparisons).
66. Of households who donated to other Jewish charities in the past year, the 5th lowest percentage who
     donated under $100 (26%, 30 comparisons).
67. Of households who donated to non-Jewish charities in the past year, the 7th lowest percentage who
     donated under $100 (29%, 35 comparisons).
68. Of households who donated to non-Jewish charities in the past year, the 6th highest percentage who
     donated $1,000 and over (17%, 35 comparisons).




                                                 12
                                       Introduction
      esearch and planning based upon sound            Second, complex decisions must be made by the
R     information have become essential                Jewish Federation of San Antonio and its agencies.
components of the activities of the organized          This study provides data to assist in the Jewish
American Jewish community. Scientific community        Federation's traditional role as a funder of social
studies have been completed in about 50 American       and educational service agencies. Questions were
Jewish communities since 1993, covering more than      asked which will assist the Jewish Federation of
75% of the 6,452,000 American Jews counted in the      San Antonio and Jewish organizations and agencies
2006 American Jewish Year Book. National Jewish        that provide, or are concerned with, social and
Population Surveys (NJPS) were conducted by the        educational services. This study provides the data
Council of Jewish Federations (now merged into         to help fine tune this network and prioritize the
United Jewish Communities) in 1971 and 1990 and        services offered.
by United Jewish Communities in 2000-01.
                                                       Third, while the Jewish Federation of San Antonio
                                                       plays a central role in Jewish fund raising, it is felt
This report will assist the Jewish Federation of San
                                                       that there is potential for increased giving across
Antonio, Jewish agencies, local synagogues, and
                                                       the community. To help meet Jewish needs in San
Jewish organizations in developing the
                                                       Antonio, Israel, and around the world, questions
community's strengths and in designing projects
                                                       were designed to collect information helpful to
and programs to address its needs. It will provide
                                                       financial resource development by the Jewish
information to help the community set priorities
                                                       community.
and guide decision making in the 21st century.
                                                       Methodology
Purposes of the Study

Three driving forces helped to define the need for,
and the nature of, this study.
                                                                    of the                 Jewish
                                                       T his study consists ofSan AntonioSurvey of
                                                         community            a Telephone
                                                       675 Jewish households in San Antonio, a DJN
First, the 1990 and 2000-01 National Jewish            Counting Project, and a Jewish Institutions Survey.
Population Surveys (NJPS 2000) and their reports
of significant rates of intermarriage and issues of    The Telephone Survey
Jewish continuity have seriously impacted the
agenda of the American Jewish community.
Concern about Jewish continuity is as great in San
                                                                        this report are based
                                                       T he results in Survey consisting ofupon a
                                                         Telephone                            675
Antonio as in any other community. This study          20-minute telephone interviews. 290 telephone
was designed, in part, to provide the Jewish           interviews were conducted from a random digit
Federation of San Antonio, Jewish agencies, local      dialing (RDD) sample and 385 interviews were
synagogues, and Jewish organizations with              conducted from a Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN)
information to enable them to provide services and     sample.
programs to contribute to the development of a
Jewish community that will offer compelling            In RDD surveys, random telephone numbers using
reasons for all Jews to maintain their Jewish          all the three-digit telephone exchange codes in the
identity and remain active members of the              study area are generated by a computer. When a
community.                                             number was dialed, there was no guarantee that a
                                                       household, let alone a Jewish household, would be
                                                       reached. The introduction asked whether anyone in



                                                  13
                                      Introduction
the household was born or raised Jewish or is         With these weighting factors applied, no statistically
currently Jewish. 87% of households reached           significant differences were seen between the RDD
answered this question. In total, 41,500 different    and DJN samples on any of the key variables.
numbers were dialed more than 85,000 times to
obtain the 290 RDD telephone interviews.              Meetings were held in which community rabbis,
                                                      Jewish agency executives and lay leadership, Jewish
The RDD methodology is necessary for a study to       Federation staff, and the Demographic Study
obtain results that accurately represent a            Planning and Advisory Committee contributed to the
population. The major advantage of this               development of the questionnaire.
methodology is that it produces a random sample
of Jewish households to be interviewed. The RDD       Paid workers from the San Antonio Jewish
methodology also has the advantages of yielding a     community were used for the interviewing process.
high survey cooperation rate (92% in San              Interviewers were found via advertisements in the
Antonio), guaranteeing anonymity to respondents,      local Jewish press, several mailings, and by word of
and providing the ability to interview households     mouth. All interviewers were themselves
with unpublished telephone numbers and                interviewed for the positions. More than 200
households who have recently migrated into the        persons applied for the interviewer positions, of
local area. Perhaps more importantly, the RDD         whom 45 were hired. Three 3½ hour training
methodology does not rely upon Jewish households      sessions were held for interviewers at the Jewish
making themselves known to the Jewish                 Federation in December 2006.
community by joining a synagogue, the Jewish
Community Center, or other Jewish organizations,      The Telephone Survey was conducted from the
or by donating money to a Jewish fund raising         Jewish Campus in January 2007. To facilitate
campaign. Thus, a more accurate representation of     contacting respondents, each telephone number was
the Jewish community should be obtained with the      dialed up to four times: at least once in the early
RDD methodology than with telephone directory         evening, at least once later in the evening, at least
methods or methods that rely upon randomly            once on a Sunday, and once during the day on a
selecting households from Jewish organization         weekday. Interviews were conducted from
mailing lists.                                        9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. No interviews were
                                                      conducted on Friday evening or Saturday.
After the completion of the RDD Telephone
Survey, an additional 385 telephone interviews        Telephone Survey Reliability
were conducted from households with a DJN listed
in the 2006 CD-ROM telephone directory. This
greatly facilitated the project: on average, one
                                                                                           so that
                                                      T he sample size of 675 is adequate of error we
                                                        can be 95% certain that the margin         for
RDD interview was completed every five hours;         the overall results (the results when examining all
one DJN interview was completed every one hour.       675 interviews) is no greater than ±3.8%. When
                                                      results are not based upon the total sample size of
The RDD sample was compared to the DJN sample         675 (for example, when results are presented for
on a number of key variables. It was found (using     households with elderly persons), the margin of
chi-square tests) that these two samples differed     error is greater than ±3.8%. See Chapter 2 in the
significantly on only one key variable. Appropriate   Main Report for a detailed discussion of sample size
weighting factors were applied to correct the         and margin of error.
demographic bias introduced by DJN sampling.


                                                 14
                                        Introduction
Jewish Institutions Survey                              Although many percentages for San Antonio
                                                        presented in the tables in this report are shown to
B rief surveysin were
  synagogues      San
                            administered to the
                            Antonio, the Jewish
                                                        the nearest tenth and most numbers are shown to the
                                                        nearest integer, it should be noted that all
Community Center, the Jewish day school, and the        percentages and numbers are estimates.
Jewish Federation. These surveys primarily
collected information on membership levels and          Definitions
enrollments in various programs.

Use of This Report                                      J ewish Person is any person who currently
                                                          A Jewish person
                                                              considers himself/herself Jewish or was born
     eaders are cautioned that not all data that        Jewish or raised Jewish and has not formally
R    justify the statements contained in this           converted to another religion or regularly attends
Summary Report are reproduced herein. See the           religious services of another religion (irrespective of
Main Report for more complete results.                  formal conversion). Note that whether a person was
                                                        born Jewish, was raised Jewish, or currently
Demographic data are easily misunderstood. The          considers himself/herself Jewish is based on self-
data in the text, tables, and graphs in this report     definition. A person who was born Jewish or raised
should be examined carefully. The most common           Jewish (excluding any such person who has
error in interpretation occurs when readers do not      formally converted to another religion or who
concentrate on the nature of the denominator (or        regularly attends religious services of another
base) used in calculating a percentage. As an           religion [irrespective of formal conversion to
example, note that in Chapter 6 of the Main Report,     another religion]), but currently considers
this study reports that 48% of Jewish respondents       himself/herself to be secular, agnostic, atheist, non-
Inside Loop 410 identify as Reform. Yet, 31% of         practicing, non-religious, non-observant, nothing,
Jewish respondents who identify as Reform live          no religion, or a non-Western religion, is considered
Inside Loop 410.                                        to be Jewish. Adults who consider themselves part
                                                        Jewish are considered to be Jewish. Children who
Another common error is to interpret results in         are part Jewish (being raised both Jewish and in
terms of the number of households when results are      another religion) are not considered to be Jewish.
shown in terms of the number of persons, or vice        Persons who are Messianic are not considered to be
versa.                                                  Jewish.

The careful reader will notice small differences in     ! Jewish Household
the percentages and numbers of households and           A Jewish household is any household containing a
persons shown in various parts of this report. The      Jewish person age 18 and over. See Chapter 2 in the
differences are due to rounding error. At times, also   Main Report for the definition of eligible Jewish
due to rounding error, the reported percentages do      households.
not sum to 100% and the reported numbers do not
sum to the appropriate numerical total. However,        ! Persons in Jewish Households
the convention employed shows the total as 100% or      Persons in Jewish households are any persons (both
the appropriate numerical total.                        Jewish and non-Jewish) living in a Jewish
                                                        household. Some results in this report are shown for
                                                        persons in Jewish households, while other results


                                                   15
                                        Introduction
are shown only for Jewish persons or only for non-      other), parent, or other Jewish adult is designated as
Jewish persons in Jewish households. Children who       the head of household.
are temporarily away at school are included as          In households in which the respondent is an adult
persons in Jewish households. Paid non-Jewish           child, an elderly relative, or another member of the
employees living in a Jewish household are not          household who is clearly not the head of household,
included as persons in Jewish households. Paid          a head of household is designated at random from
Jewish employees living in a Jewish household are       the husband and wife in the household or the single
included as persons in Jewish households.               parent is designated as the head of household.
! Jew-by-Choice                                         ! Age of Head of Household and
For adults, a Jew-by-Choice is any adult who was
not born or raised Jewish, but currently considers
                                                        Age of Respondent
                                                        Data are shown for the age of head of household
himself/herself Jewish (irrespective of formal
                                                        when examining questions in which the head of
conversion). For children, a Jew-by-Choice is any
                                                        household is instrumental in making a household
child who was not born Jewish but is being raised
                                                        decision (such as synagogue membership or
Jewish (irrespective of formal conversion). A child
                                                        charitable donations). Data are shown for the age of
who was not born Jewish but is being raised Jewish
                                                        respondent when examining questions in which the
and in another religion is not a Jew-by-Choice.
                                                        respondent is expressing an opinion (such as
                                                        emotional attachment to Israel) and questions asked
! Born or Raised Jewish Adult
                                                        only of the respondent (such as synagogue
A born or raised Jewish adult is any Jewish person      attendance).
age 18 or over who was born or raised Jewish.
Thus, Jews-by-Choice and persons of Jewish              Children in Jewish Households
background who no longer consider themselves
Jewish are not included as born or raised Jewish
                                                        and Jewish Children
                                                        Children in Jewish households are any persons age
adults.
                                                        0-17 (both Jewish and non-Jewish) living in a
                                                        Jewish household. Jewish children are any persons
! Respondent                                            age 0-17 living in a Jewish household who are
The respondent is the person in a Jewish household      identified by the respondent as being raised Jewish.
who was queried in the Telephone Survey. Some           Children who are being raised both Jewish and in
questions in the Telephone Survey were asked of the     another religion (part Jewish) are not considered to
respondent only, while other questions were asked       be Jewish children. Some results in this report are
of the respondent about the household or about other    shown for children in Jewish households or Jewish
persons in the household. Some results in this report   households with children, while other results are
are shown for respondents only. Some results are        shown only for Jewish children or households with
shown for all respondents, while other results are      Jewish children.
shown only for Jewish respondents. See Chapter 2
in the Main Report for the definition of eligible
                                                        ! Age Groups
respondents.
                                                        Except as otherwise specified in this report, children
! Head of Household                                     refers to persons age 0-17, teenagers refers to
                                                        persons age 13-17, adults refers to persons age 18
In most cases, the respondent is the head of
                                                        and over, non-elderly refers to adults under age 65,
household. In cases in which the respondent is not
                                                        and elderly refers to adults age 65 and over.
Jewish, the Jewish spouse (or partner or significant


                                                   16
                                         Introduction
! Household Structure                                    Ú Intermarriage: An intermarriage is a marriage
Household with children refers to Jewish households      in which one spouse was born or raised Jewish and
containing children (both Jewish and non-Jewish)         currently considers himself/herself Jewish and the
age 0-17 at home. Household with only adult              other spouse was not born or raised Jewish and does
children refers to Jewish households containing          not currently consider himself/herself Jewish.
adult children (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age
                                                         ! Jewish Organization
18-29 (unless otherwise specified) at home and no        A Jewish organization is a Jewish organization other
children age 0-17 at home. Non-elderly couple            than a synagogue or Jewish Community Center. In
household refers to two-person Jewish households         querying whether anyone in the household is
containing a married couple in which the head of         currently a member of a Jewish organization,
household is age 18-64. Non-elderly single               respondents were given the examples of B’nai B’rith
household refers to one-person Jewish households         and Hadassah.
containing a person age 18-64. Elderly couple
household refers to two-person Jewish households
                                                         ! Jewish and General Trips to Israel
containing a married couple in which the head of
                                                         Ø Jewish Trip: A Jewish trip to Israel is a trip
household is age 65 or over. Elderly single
                                                         sponsored by a Jewish group, such as a Jewish
household refers to one-person Jewish households
                                                         Federation, synagogue, or Jewish organization.
containing a person age 65 or over.
                                                         Households containing members who lived or
                                                         studied in Israel are reported as households in which
! Jewish Identification                                  a member visited Israel on a Jewish trip.
Except as otherwise specified, results reported for      Households containing members who visited Israel
Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform,       on both a Jewish trip and a general trip are reported
and Just Jewish subgroups refer to the respondent’s      under Jewish Trip.
self-identification, not the denomination of
synagogue membership. In cases in which the              Ù General Trip: A general trip to Israel is either a
respondent is not Jewish, the Jewish identification is   trip sponsored by a non-Jewish group or
that of the Jewish spouse (or partner or significant     commercial company or a trip in which the
other), parent, or other Jewish adult as reported by     household member visits Israel on his/her own.
the non-Jewish respondent (in a proxy fashion).          Households containing Israelis are reported as
                                                         households in which a member visited Israel on a
! Types of Marriage                                      general trip.
Ø In-marriage: An in-marriage is a marriage in
which both spouses were born or raised Jewish and        ! Jewish Federation Market Segments
currently consider themselves Jewish.
                                                         in the Past Year
                                                         Respondents were asked whether their households
Ù Conversionary In-marriage: A conversionary
                                                         donated to the Jewish Federation of San Antonio
in-marriage is a marriage in which one spouse was
                                                         (Jewish Federation) in the past year. If their
born or raised Jewish and currently considers
                                                         households did not donate, the respondents were
himself/herself Jewish and the other spouse was not
                                                         asked whether the Jewish Federation contacted them
born or raised Jewish but currently considers
                                                         in the past year for the purpose of asking their
himself/herself Jewish (irrespective of formal
                                                         households to donate. From these two questions,
conversion) (Jew-by-Choice).
                                                         three Jewish Federation market segments are
                                                         developed:


                                                    17
                                        Introduction
Ø Donated to Federation: Includes households            Comparisons with Other Jewish
who reported that they donated to the Jewish            Communities
Federation in the past year.

Ù Asked, Did Not Donate: Includes households            I n many cases, this report compares San Antonio
                                                          with other American Jewish communities. The
who reported that the Jewish Federation asked them      choice of comparison Jewish communities depends
to donate in the past year, but they declined to        upon whether particular Jewish communities had
donate.                                                 recently completed studies using RDD, and whether
                                                        questions had been asked in a similar manner and
Ú Not Asked: Includes households who reported           results reported in a manner facilitating comparison.
that they did not donate to the Jewish Federation in    Also, to be included in a given comparison, a
the past year and were not asked to donate.             community had to have asked the question of the
                                                        same set of households or persons in a household as
“Don’t know” responses were treated as negative         San Antonio. For example, if the question in San
responses.                                              Antonio was asked of all persons in Jewish
                                                        households, then only other Jewish communities
! Donated to Jewish Federation                          querying this set of persons could be included in the
in the Past Year                                        comparison. The comparisons of San Antonio with
                                                        other Jewish communities should be treated with
The variable Donated to Jewish Federation in the
                                                        caution due to the different dates of the studies, use
Past Year refers only to households who donated to
                                                        of different sampling methods, use of different
the Jewish Federation of San Antonio.
                                                        questionnaires, and inclusion of some data with
                                                        small sample sizes.
! Median
The median is a measure of the central tendency of      It is believed that based on the recency of the study,
a distribution. For example, if the median age is 40,   geographic proximity of the community to San
then half of the population is under age 40 and half    Antonio, similar size of the Jewish Federation
of the population is over age 40.                       Annual Campaign, or similar population size of the
                                                        community, the following communities provide
! Base                                                  particularly instructive comparisons with San
The base refers to the set of households or persons     Antonio: Jacksonville, St. Paul, Tidewater, and
in a household to whom (or about whom) each             Tucson. See the Main Report for a complete listing
question on the Telephone Survey was addressed.         of the comparison Jewish communities for each
The base is the denominator used in calculating the     question.
percentages shown in the text, tables, and graphs.
The base is shown either in the titles, column          See www.jewishdatabank.org for copies of the
headings, or row labels of the tables or following      questionnaires and reports for many of the
the titles of the graphs. Examples of bases used in     comparison Jewish communities.
this report include, among others, Jewish House-
holds, Persons in Jewish Households, Respondents,
Adults in Jewish Households, and Jewish Children
Age 0-17.




                                                   18
                                       Introduction
                                                       Study Area
Comparisons with NJPS 2000

     he NJPS 2000 questionnaire was administered
                                                                                    of Bexar County,
                                                       T he study area includes all analysis, the study
                                                         Texas. For the purposes of
T    to 4,523 respondents who represent the 5.2        area is divided into three geographic areas.
million American Jews estimated by the study. Of
the 4,523 respondents, 4,220 respondents               Ø Inside Loop 410. Includes zip codes 78002,
(representing 4.3 million more Jewishly-connected      78073, 78101, 78112, 78152, 78201, 78202,
American Jews) received a longer 43-minute             78203, 78204, 78205, 78207, 78208, 78209,
questionnaire. The other 303 respondents               78210, 78211, 78212, 78214, 78215, 78218,
(representing 900,000 less Jewishly-connected          78219, 78220, 78221, 78222, 78223, 78224,
American Jews) received a 21-minute questionnaire.     78225, 78226, 78227, 78228, 78234, 78235,
The shorter questionnaire consisted of a subset of     78236, 78237, 78242, 78262, 78263, 78264, and
questions from the longer questionnaire, omitting      sections of 78213 and 78216.
many questions about Jewish identity. As a result,
the NJPS 2000 results for most demographic             Ù Between 410 & 1604. Includes zip codes 78109,
measures presented in this report represent all 5.2    78150, 78217, 78229, 78230, 78231, 78232,
million American Jews, while the NJPS 2000 results     78233, 78239, 78240, 78244, 78247, 78248,
for most Jewish identity measures presented in this    78249, 78250, 78251, and sections of 78213 and
report represent only the 4.3 million more Jewishly-   78216.
connected American Jews. Results on Jewish
identity measures for the more Jewishly-connected      Ú Outside Loop 1604. Includes zip codes 78006,
sample are, in most cases, more positive than they     78015, 78023, 78148, 78154, 78245, 78253,
would have been had these data been collected from     78254, 78255, 78256, 78257, 78258, 78259,
all respondents representing the 5.2 million           78260, and 78261.
American Jews. See www.jewishdatabank.org for
more information on the NJPS 2000 methodology.

This researcher believes that comparisons with other
Jewish communities based upon local community
studies are more instructive than comparisons with
NJPS 2000. In the text, NJPS 2000 results are
referred to as nationally in comparison to the San
Antonio results.




                                                  19
        Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population
                               in 4,500 Jewish households                Of
 O verall, 11,200 persons live persons (81%) are Jewish. in San Antonio. the the 11,200 persons in
   Jewish households, 9,100                               San Antonio is      fourth largest Jewish
community in Texas. In addition to the 11,200 persons in Jewish households, about 70 Jewish persons live
in institutions without their own telephone numbers and 65 Jewish students (whose parents do not live in San
Antonio) live in dormitories. Thus, in total, the Jewish community contains 11,335 persons. 75% of Jewish
households are on the Jewish Federation of San Antonio mailing list, the fourth highest percentage of about
30 comparison Jewish communities.

| The number of Jewish households decreased by 6% from 4,780 households in 2000.

| The 4,500 Jewish households constitute 0.9% of the estimated 525,363 households in San Antonio. The
11,200 persons in Jewish households constitute 0.8% of the estimated 1,502,538 persons in San Antonio.
The resident Jewish population (which includes Jews in Jewish households and Jews in institutions) of 9,170
Jews constitutes 0.6% of the estimated 1,502,538 persons in San Antonio.

| The 0.9% of Jewish households is the second lowest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 3.9% in Tucson, 1.6% in St. Paul, 1.5% in Jacksonville, and 1.4% in Tidewater. The 0.9%
compares to 2.7% nationally.

| According to the 2005 American Community Survey, 7% of persons in San Antonio are Black, 2% are
Asian, and 57% are Hispanic.

| About 570 Jewish households live in the seven-county area surrounding Bexar County (Atascosa,
Bandera, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson counties), with about 1,400 persons in Jewish
households and 1,000 Jews. More than 40% of the Jewish households live in Comal County; about 20% live
in Guadalupe; and about 15% live in Kendall. Comal County has shown some increase in Jewish population
since 2000. The other counties have shown no change.




                        Number of Jewish Households, 2000-2007


                                                  20
        Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population

                                         Table 1
                          Current Size of the Jewish Community
                                                                         Persons in
                                                                     Jewish Households
                                Number of             Average      Number                       Number
                                  Jewish             Household       of           Percentage      of
 Geographic Area                Households             Size        Persons          Jewish       Jews
 Inside Loop 410                     1,120              2.27        2,540           77.4%        1,960
 Between 410 & 1604                  2,600              2.55        6,630           83.1%        5,510
 Outside Loop 1604                   780                2.60        2,030           80.2%        1,630
 All                                 4,500              2.49       11,200           81.3%        9,100


                                       Table 2
                   Geographic Distribution of the Jewish Community
                                   Jewish                     Persons in                  Jews in
                                 Households               Jewish Households          Jewish Households
 Geographic Area            Number         Percentage     Number     Percentage     Number     Percentage
 Inside Loop 410             1,120           24.9%         2,540      22.7%          1,960      21.5%
 Between 410 & 1604          2,600            57.8         6,630       59.2          5,510       60.6
 Outside Loop 1604            780             17.3         2,030       18.1          1,630       17.9
 All                         4,500           100.0%       11,200      100.0%         9,100      100.0%

| The number of households Inside Loop 410 decreased from 1,490 households to 1,120 households (25%)
from 2000-2007. The number of persons in Jewish households decreased from 3,380 persons to 2,540
persons.

| The number of households Between 410 & 1604 decreased from 2,820 households to 2,600 households
(8%) from 2000-2007. The number of persons in Jewish households decreased from 7,190 persons to 6,630
persons.

| The number of households Outside Loop 1604 increased from 470 households to 780 households (66%)
from 2000-2007. The number of persons in Jewish households increased from 1,220 persons to 2,030
persons.

| 16% of Jewish households live in one zip code area (78230) and 36% live in one of three zip code areas
(78230, 78209, and 78248).




                                                     21
Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population




   Geographic Distribution of Jewish Households–2000




   Geographic Distribution of Jewish Households–2007


                                22
       Size and Distribution of the Jewish Population




Number of Persons in Jewish Households by Geographic Area, 2000-2007




                                          23
                                Geographic Profile
           88% of                                                       in the       States. 42% of
O verall, in Jewishadults in Jewish households in San Antonio were bornTexas);Unitedin the Northeast
  adults            households were born in the South (including 35% in        26%,
(including 17% in New York and 4% in Pennsylvania); 14%, in the Midwest (including 4% in Illinois); and
6%, in the West. 21% (1,905 adults) of adults in Jewish households were locally born (born in San
Antonio). 12% (1,077 adults) of adults in Jewish households were foreign born. 169 adults in Jewish
households were born in Mexico and 134, in Israel.

| The 21% locally born is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 39% in St. Paul, 34% in Tidewater, 18% in Jacksonville, and 8% in Tucson. The percentage of
locally-born adults is important in understanding levels of attachment to the local community and local
institutions. Most observers agree that adults living in the area in which they were born are more likely to
maintain formal contacts with the Jewish community. They are more likely to continue to belong to the
synagogue in which they were raised and to participate in the local organized Jewish community.

| The 12% foreign born is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 17% in St. Paul, 9% in Jacksonville, 8% in Tucson, and 6% in Tidewater. The 12% compares to 13%
of all persons (both Jewish and non-Jewish adults and children) in San Antonio as of 2005 and 12% of all
Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish adults and children) as of 2005.

Households from the Former Soviet Union
| 1.9% (86 households) of households are from the Former Soviet Union (FSU households).

Part-Year Households
| 1.1% (50 households) of households live in San Antonio for less than ten months of the year.

Home Ownership
| 90% of households own their home. The 90% is the fourth highest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 82% in Jacksonville, 81% in St. Paul, 79% in Tidewater, and 76% in Tucson.
The 90% compares to 66% nationally, 64% of all households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in San Antonio
as of 2005, and 67% of all American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2005.

Location of Previous Residence
| 10% (459 households) of respondents moved to San Antonio from New York; 7% (302 households), from
California; 4%, from Florida; and 4%, from Illinois. 47% of respondents moved to San Antonio from the
South (including the 14% who have always lived in San Antonio and 19% who moved from other parts of
Texas); 20%, from the Northeast; 14%, from the Midwest; 12%, from the West; and 8%, from foreign
locations. 19% of respondents moved to San Antonio from other parts of Texas.




                                                  24
                                Geographic Profile
Length of Residence
| 13% (576 households) of households in San Antonio moved to San Antonio within the past five years
(new households). Thus, an average of 115 households in San Antonio moved to San Antonio each year
during the past five years (the in-migration rate). 7% of households have lived in San Antonio for 5-9 years;
18%, for 10-19 years; and 62%, for 20 or more years (long-term households).

| The 13% of new households is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 18% in Tucson, 14% in Jacksonville, 13% in St. Paul, and 10% in Tidewater. New households
are more likely to live Outside Loop 1604, be under age 50, be households with children and non-elderly
single households, be synagogue, JCC, and Jewish organization non-member households, and be households
who were not asked to donate and did not donate to the Jewish Federation in the past year than are longer-
term households (live in San Antonio for five or more years).

| The 62% of long-term households is well above average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 60% in St. Paul, 59% in Tidewater, 53% in Jacksonville, and 41% in Tucson.

| 28% of households have lived at their current address for 0-4 years; 21%, for 5-9 years; 26%, for 10-19
years; and 25%, for 20 or more years. The 28% who have lived at their current address for 0-4 years is the
sixth lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities.

| The percentage of households who have lived at their current address for 0-4 years is much higher Outside
Loop 1604 (54%) than Between 410 & 1604 (24%) and Inside Loop 410 (20%).




                   Length of Residence in San Antonio


                                                   25
                                 Geographic Profile
Migration
| 5% (225 households) of households will definitely move (either within San Antonio or out of San Antonio)
within the next three years. 9% (414 households) of households will probably move; 37%, probably not;
46%, definitely not; and 3%, don’t know. In total, 14% of households will definitely or probably move
within the next three years. The 14% is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 23% in Tidewater, 16% in Jacksonville, 15% in Tucson, and 12% in St. Paul. The 14%
compares to 32% nationally.

| 8% (338 households) of households will definitely or probably move out of San Antonio within the next
three years. The 8% is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 12%
in Tidewater, 8% in both Jacksonville and Tucson, and 5% in St. Paul.

| 3.3% (149 households) of households will definitely move out of San Antonio within the next three years.
The 3.3% is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 5.7% in
Tidewater, 4.4% in Tucson, 1.5% in Jacksonville, and 1.2% in St. Paul.

| The 3.3% definitely moving out of San Antonio within the next three years suggests a loss of an average
of 50 households per year. Some portion of the 4.3% probably moving out of San Antonio (an average of
65 households per year) will actually move. In total, an average of between 50 and 115 households will
move out of San Antonio each year within the next three years (the out-migration rate). An average of 115
households in San Antonio moved to San Antonio each year during the past five years (the in-migration
rate). Assuming that the current rate of in-migration continues for the next few years, these data suggest that
the number of Jewish households in San Antonio will probably not change significantly during the next few
years as a result of migration into and out of San Antonio.




                     Probability of Moving Within the Next Three Years


                                                   26
                                 Geographic Profile
                                                  in    Antonio were asked whether
R espondents age 50 and over in Jewish householdsandSanso, whether these children live they have adult
  children who have established their own homes,     if                                 in San Antonio
(households with local adult children). The interest in this information relates to the support system that adult
children can provide for their parents, particularly in times of poor health or financial crisis. Adult children
living in San Antonio presumably will provide such a support system. The presence of adult children living
in San Antonio also indicates the existence of multi-generational families. Such families generally show a
greater level of attachment to the local community and local institutions.

| 27% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have no adult children who have established
their own homes; 39% have at least one adult child who has established his/her own home in San Antonio;
and 35% have adult children none of whom have established their own homes in San Antonio. These data
suggest that at least 39% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over will have a local support
system as they age.

| The 39% of households with local adult children is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 66% in St. Paul, 53% in Tidewater, 40% in Tucson, and 36% in Jacksonville.

| An additional 10% of households in which the respondent is age 50 or over have adult children living in
their household, for a total of 49% of households with adult children living in San Antonio.

| Of households in which the respondent is age 75 or over, 55% have at least one adult child who has
established his/her own home in San Antonio.

| In households in which the
respondent is age 50 or over, 34% of
adult children who have established
their own homes live in San Antonio.
The 34% is about average among about
20 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 65% in St. Paul, 43% in
Tidewater, 31% in Jacksonville, and
29% in Tucson.




                                          Location of Adult Children
                                          (Households in Which the Respondent Is Age 50 or Over)



                                                    27
                       Demographic Profile–Age
             sex distribution of a population is among the most important demographic indicators. It
T heaage anddeterminant of the types of programs the San Antonio Jewish community must offer. Age
  is major
is related to everything from levels of religious observance to synagogue membership and levels of
philanthropy.
| The 21% of persons age 0-17 in Jewish households is about average among about 45 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 27% in St. Paul, 25% in Tidewater, 21% in Jacksonville, and 16%
in Tucson. The 21% compares to 20% nationally, 28% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) of
San Antonio as of 2005, and 25% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2005.
| 560 children age 0-5 live in Jewish households (of whom 76% (428 children) are being raised Jewish),
as do 974 children age 6-12 (of whom 80% (783 children) are being raised Jewish) and 762 children age
13-17 (of whom 75% (573 children) are being raised Jewish). An average of 93 children are born each
year to persons in Jewish households in San Antonio, of whom 71 children will be raised Jewish.

| The 24% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households is above average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 23% in Tucson, 20% in Jacksonville, 16% in St. Paul,
and 12% in Tidewater. The 24% compares to 16% nationally, 10% of all residents (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) of San Antonio as of 2005, and 12% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of
2005.




Age Distribution of Persons in Jewish Households


                                               28
                   Demographic Profile–Age
                                   Table 3
          Age and Sex Distribution of Persons in Jewish Households
                         Percentage                             Number
Age Group        Male     Female       All     Male             Female             All
0-5              2.7%      2.3%       5.0%     302                258             560
6 - 12            4.5       4.2        8.7     504                470             974
13 - 17           3.3       3.5        6.8     370                392             762
18 - 24           3.9       3.3        7.2     437                370             806
25 - 34           1.6       1.8        3.4     179                202             381
35 - 44           4.1       6.5        10.6    459                728             1,187
45 - 54           7.6       7.8        15.4    851                874             1,725
55 - 64           8.8      10.1        18.9    986               1,131            2,117
65 - 74           6.0       5.9        11.9    672                661             1,333
75 - 84           4.3       3.6        7.9     482                403             885
85 and over       1.8       2.2        4.0     202                246             448
Total           48.7%     51.3%       100.0%   5,454             5,746        11,200
                        Cumulative Age Categories
0 - 17          10.5%     10.0%       20.5%    1,176             1,120            2,296
18 and over     38.2%     41.3%       79.5%    4,278             4,626            8,904
18 - 34          5.5%      5.1%       10.6%    616                572             1,187
35 - 49          7.7%     10.7%       18.4%    862               1,198            2,061
50 - 64         12.9%     13.7%       26.6%    1,445             1,534            2,979
65 and over     12.1%     11.7%       23.8%    1,356             1,310            2,666
75 and over      6.1%      5.8%       11.9%    684                649             1,333
Median Age 1     50.8      49.8        50.2            1
                                                           Median age in years.




                                      29
                     Demographic Profile–Age

              Age Distribution of Persons in Jewish Households
                             by Geographic Area




Inside Loop 410                                     Between 410 & 1604
(Median Age = 54 years)                             (Median Age = 50 years)




                          Outside Loop 1604
                          (Median Age = 46 years)


                                             30
                        Demographic Profile–Age
                                        Table 4
                         Geographic Distribution of Age Groups
                                   Inside           Between            Outside
 Age Group                        Loop 410         410 & 1604         Loop 1604             Total
 0-5                               14.8%               56.3               28.9             100.0%
 6 - 12                            20.5%               63.4               16.1             100.0%
 13 - 17                           18.8%               57.4               23.8             100.0%
 18 - 24                           22.6%               66.6               10.8             100.0%
 25 - 34                           22.4%               56.7               20.9             100.0%
 35 - 49                           20.1%               56.2               23.7             100.0%
 50 - 64                           19.3%               62.8               17.9             100.0%
 65 - 74                           25.3%               60.6               14.1             100.0%
 75 and over                       39.6%               48.5               11.9             100.0%
 All                               22.7%               59.2               18.1             100.0%
                                 Cumulative Age Categories
 0 - 17                            18.6%               59.7               21.7             100.0%
 18 - 64                           20.2%               60.7               19.1             100.0%
 65 and over                       32.5%               54.5               13.0             100.0%
                                         Jewish Children
 0-5                               12.2%               57.3               30.5             100.0%
 6 - 12                            17.6%               64.1               18.3             100.0%
 13 - 17                           19.6%               57.5               22.9             100.0%
 0 - 17                            16.9%               60.4               22.7             100.0%

 | An important finding is that the number of children age 0-4 in Jewish households is smaller than the
number of children age 5-9, which in turn is smaller than the number of children age 10-14. This suggests
a declining birth rate for persons in Jewish households.
 | A second important finding about the age distribution is the relatively low percentage of persons age
25-34 in Jewish households (3%).
 | A third important finding is that a significant increase in the percentage of persons age 65 and over
in Jewish households is to be expected. While there are 1,333 persons age 65-74, there are 2,117 persons
age 55-64. This suggests that, over the next decade, an increase can be expected in the number of persons
in Jewish households who will need elderly services.



                                                 31
           Demographic Profile–Household Size
                       size of Jewish
T he average household 50 comparison households in San Antonio is 2.49 persons.inThe 2.49 is about
  average among about                 Jewish communities and compares to 2.60 St. Paul, 2.55 in
Tidewater, 2.42 in Jacksonville, and 2.14 in Tucson. The 2.49 compares to 2.31 nationally, 2.86 for all
households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in San Antonio as of 2005, and 2.60 for all American
households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2005.

| The 22% of one-person households is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 33% in Tucson, 27% in both Tidewater and St. Paul, and 25% in Jacksonville. The 22%
compares to 30% nationally, 26% of all households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in San Antonio as of
2005, and 27% of all American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2005.

| The 24% of households with four or more persons is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 28% in St. Paul, 25% in Tidewater, 22% in Jacksonville, and 15% in
Tucson. The 24% compares to 19% nationally, 30% of all households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in
San Antonio as of 2005, and 25% of all American households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2000.




              Household Size




                                                32
     Demographic Profile–Household Structure
               structure
T he householdstatus, andof Jewish households in San Antonio is determined by a combination of age,
  sex, marital            the relationship between persons in the household.




        Household Structure


Households with Children
| The 24% of married households with children age 0-17 at home is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 36% in St. Paul, 29% in Tidewater, 25% in
Jacksonville, and 17% in Tucson. The 24% compares to 19% nationally, 23% of all households (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) in San Antonio as of 2005, and 22% of all American households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) as of 2005.

| The 3% of single parent households with children age 0-17 at home is about average among about 40
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 3% in both Tidewater and Tucson and 2% in both
St. Paul and Jacksonville. The 3% compares to 3% nationally and 8% of all American households (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2000. Single parent households are households with one adult and children
age 0-17 at home.




                                               33
   Demographic Profile–Household Structure
                                     Table 5
                               Household Structure
Household Structure                                     Percentage   Number
                  Households with Children Age 0-17 at Home
Married                                                   23.9%       1,076
Unmarried                                                  0.1         5
Single Parent                                              2.5        113
Other                                                      0.3         14
# Total Households with Children Age 0-17 at Home         26.8%       1,206
            Households with Only Adult Children Age 18-29 at Home
Married                                                   5.5%        248
Unmarried                                                  0.0         0
Single Parent                                              2.3        104
Other                                                      0.2         9
# Total Households with Only Adult Children Age 18-29
  at Home                                                 8.0%        360
                  Married Households—No Children at Home
Under Age 35                                              0.2%         9
Age 35 - 49                                                1.8         81
Age 50 - 64                                                14.5       653
9 Total Non-Elderly Couple Households                     16.5%       743
Age 65 - 74                                               11.5%       518
Age 75 and over                                            7.9        356
9 Total Elderly Couple Households                         19.4%       873
# Total Married Households–No Children at Home            35.9%       1,616




                                         34
    Demographic Profile–Household Structure
                                         Table 5
                                   Household Structure
 Household Structure                                                 Percentage       Number
                                Single Person Households
 Male under Age 65                                                      4.2%            189
 Female under Age 65                                                     5.1            230
 9 Total Non-Elderly Single Households                                  9.3%            419
 Male Age 65 - 74                                                       1.9%             86
 Female Age 65 - 74                                                      2.5            113
 Male Age 75 and over                                                    2.5            113
 Female Age 75 and over                                                  5.5            248
 9 Total Elderly Single Households                                     12.4%            558
 # Total Single Person Households                                      21.7%            977
                              Other Household Structures
 Unmarried Couple                                                       1.0%             45
 Roommate/Friend                                                         0.6             27
 Parent Living with Adult Children Age 30 and over                       5.2            234
 Same-Sex Couple                                                         0.6             27
 Other                                                                   0.2              9
 # Total Other Household Structures                                     7.6%            342
 Grand Total                                                           100.0%          4,500

Married Households–No Children at Home
| The 36% of married households with no children at home is above average among about 35 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Jacksonville, 32% in Tucson, 26% in Tidewater, and 24%
in St. Paul. The 36% compares to 26% nationally and 30% of all American households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) as of 2000.

| The 0% of married households under age 35 with no children at home is the lowest of about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 3% in Tidewater, 2% in both St. Paul and Tucson, and
1% in Jacksonville.




                                              35
     Demographic Profile–Household Structure
| The 16% of married households age 35-64 with no children at home is about average among about 35
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 17% in Tidewater, 16% in Jacksonville, 15% in
Tucson, and 11% in St. Paul.

| The 19% of married households age 65 and over with no children at home is about average among
about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 16% in Jacksonville, 15% in Tucson, 11% in
St. Paul, and 7% in Tidewater.

Single Person Households
| The 9% of single person households under age 65 is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 19% in Tucson, 15% in both Tidewater and Jacksonville, and 11% in
St. Paul.

| The 4% of single male households age 65 and over is about average among about 35 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 5% in St. Paul and 4% in each of Tucson, Tidewater, and
Jacksonville.

| The 8% of single female households age 65 and over is about average among about 35 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 12% in St. Paul, 9% in Tucson, 8% in Tidewater, and 7% in
Jacksonville.

Living Arrangements of Children
| 27% (416 children) of children age 0-12 in Jewish households live in households in which both parents
(or the parent in a single parent household) are employed full time (households with working parents). The
percentage of children age 0-12 living in households with working parents helps to determine the need
for after school programs. The 27% is below average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 41% in Jacksonville, 40% in Tidewater, 38% in Tucson, and 30% in St. Paul.

| 9% (200 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in single parent households
(households with one adult and children age 0-17 at home). The 9% is about average among about 30
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 9% in Tucson, 8% in Tidewater, 6% in Jacksonville,
and 5% in St. Paul. The 9% compares to 25% of all White American children (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) age 0-17 as of 2000.

| 38% (866 children) of children age 0-17 in Jewish households live in households in which an adult is
either currently divorced or divorced and remarried. The 38% is the third highest of about 30 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 36% in Tucson, 31% in Tidewater, 30% in Jacksonville, and 21%
in St. Paul.




                                                 36
     Demographic Profile–Household Structure
Living Arrangements of the Elderly
| The 21% of persons age 65 and over in Jewish households who live alone is below average among
about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 40% in St. Paul, 37% in Tidewater, 27% in
Tucson, and 21% in Jacksonville. The 21% compares to 31% of all Americans (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) age 65 and over as of 2000.

| The 27% of persons age 75 and over in Jewish households who live alone is the sixth lowest of about
35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 48% in St. Paul, 47% in Tidewater, 35% in Tucson,
and 24% in Jacksonville.




        Selected Household Structures by Geographic Area




                                               37
            Demographic Profile–Marital Status
          of adults                    in San Antonio who are currently married is     average
T he 70% about 45 in Jewish householdscommunities and compares to 70% in both aboutPaul and
  among             comparison Jewish                                              St.
Jacksonville, 68% in Tidewater, and 62% in Tucson. The 70% compares to 52% of all residents (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over of San Antonio as of 2005 and 53% of all Americans (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over as of 2005.

| The 16% single, never married is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 20% in Tucson, 18% in Jacksonville, and 17% in both St. Paul and Tidewater. The 16%
compares to 29% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over of San Antonio as of 2005
and 28% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over as of 2005.

| The divorce rate is the number of divorced adults per 1,000 married adults. The divorce rate of 106 for
adults in Jewish households is well above average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 145 in Tucson, 122 in Tidewater, and 80 in both St. Paul and Jacksonville. The 106 compares
to 216 for all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over of San Antonio as of 2005 and 192 for
all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over as of 2005.

| The 6% currently widowed is about average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 9% in Tucson, 7% in St. Paul, and 6% in both Jacksonville and Tidewater. The 6%
compares to 6% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over of San Antonio as of 2005
and 6% of all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 15 and over as of 2005.

| 23% of adults in Jewish households are or have been divorced, 9% are or have been widowed, 84%
are or have been married, and 19% are on their second or higher marriage.




                   Marital Status of Adults of Jewish Households


                                                  38
            Demographic Profile–Marital Status
                                   Table 6
         Marital Status by Age for Adult Males in Jewish Households
Marital Status                    Under 35      35-49       50-64       65-74      75+         65+
Married for First Time              11.1%       75.3%      52.1%       58.3%      57.4%       57.7%
Single, Never Married                86.3        10.3        4.5         2.0        3.2         2.6
Divorced, Remarried                   0.8        10.6       28.4        23.1        7.2        14.9
Widowed, Remarried                    0.0        0.0         4.0         2.7       12.5         7.8
Currently Divorced                    1.8        2.9         8.7         8.9        6.9         7.9
Currently Widowed                     0.0        0.0         2.2         4.0        9.9         7.1
Separated                             0.0        0.0         0.0         1.0        2.9         2.0
Live as Same-Sex Couple               0.0        0.9         0.1         0.0        0.0         0.0
Total                              100.0%      100.0%      100.0%     100.0%      100.0%     100.0%


                                   Table 7
        Marital Status by Age for Adult Females in Jewish Households
Marital Status                    Under 35      35-49       50-64       65-74      75+         65+
Married for First Time              19.7%       66.3%      48.9%       54.2%      37.1%       45.7%
Single, Never Married                76.3        4.4         8.5         4.2        3.3         3.7
Divorced, Remarried                   0.4        14.2       26.1        16.7        4.2        10.5
Widowed, Remarried                    0.0        0.4         2.5         6.5        6.2         6.4
Currently Divorced                    1.8        10.2       11.9         5.5        6.1         5.8
Currently Widowed                     0.0        0.4         2.1        12.9       43.1        27.9
Separated                             1.8        0.8         0.0         0.0        0.0         0.0
Live as Same-Sex Couple               0.0        3.3         0.0         0.0        0.0         0.0
Total                              100.0%      100.0%      100.0%     100.0%      100.0%     100.0%

Single Jewish Adults
| 30% (2,195 adults) of Jewish adults in Jewish households are single. 33% (729 adults) of single Jewish
adults are under age 35, 12% (268 adults) are age 35-49, 23% (511 adults) are age 50-64, 11% (233
adults) are age 65-74, and 21% (454 adults) are age 75 and over. 57% of single Jewish adults are female.



                                                39
        Demographic Profile–Secular Education
                   age              in Jewish              San Antonio do not
O nly 1% of adultsadults25 and over over (82%households in 25 and over and 68%havefemales age 25
  degree. 75% of         age 25 and           of males age                     of
                                                                                    a high school

and over) have a four-year college degree or higher, including 36% with a graduate degree.

| The 75% with a four-year college degree or higher is the fourth highest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 69% in St. Paul, 68% in Tucson, 61% in Jacksonville, and 59% in
Tidewater. The 75% compares to 24% of all adults (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 25 and over in San
Antonio as of 2005 and 27% of all American adults (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 25 and over as of
2005.

| The 36% with a graduate degree is the sixth highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 35% in Tucson, 33% in St. Paul, 23% in Tidewater, and 22% in Jacksonville. The 36%
compares to 9% of all adults (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 25 and over in San Antonio as of 2005
and 10% of all American adults (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 25 and over as of 2005.

| 22% of adults age 25 and over have a Master’s degree; 5%, a doctoral degree; 5%, a medical or dental
degree; and 5%, a law degree. Among adults age 25 and over, there are 348 doctors, 24 dentists, and 364
lawyers living in Jewish households.




                Secular Education of Adults Age 25 and Over in Jewish Households


                                                40
         Demographic Profile–Secular Education
                                    Table 8
         Secular Education by Age for Adult Males in Jewish Households
 Highest Degree Earned                   18-24   25-34    35-49    50-64    65-74    75+      65+
 High School Degree or Less              15.9% 11.4%      5.5%     1.5%     5.2%    13.7%     9.6%
 Some College/2-Year College Degree       75.5     9.1     12.9      8.5     19.3     14.2     16.7
 4-Year College Degree                    7.1     52.9     37.8     38.3     33.8     38.2     36.0
 Graduate Degree                          1.5     26.6     43.8     51.7     41.7     33.9     37.7
 Total                                   100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
 Total 4-Year College Degree or Higher   8.6%    79.5% 81.6% 90.0% 75.5% 72.1% 73.7%


                                 Table 9
     Secular Education by Age for Adult Females in Jewish Households
 Highest Degree Earned                   18-24   25-34    35-49    50-64    65-74    75+      65+
 High School Degree or Less              10.1% 11.4%      6.2%     10.6% 16.0% 30.8% 23.2%
 Some College/2-Year College Degree       71.4    17.4     10.8     16.0     30.1     30.3     30.2
 4-Year College Degree                    17.6    39.4     48.7     36.9     33.7     26.4     30.2
 Graduate Degree                          0.9     31.8     34.3     36.5     20.2     12.5     16.4
 Total                                   100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
 Total 4-Year College Degree or Higher   18.5% 71.2% 83.0% 73.4% 53.9% 38.9% 46.6%

| Note that adults age 18-24 in Jewish households are not included in the results on the previous page
for adults age 25 and over.




                                                 41
       Demographic Profile–Employment Status
        of adults                     in San Antonio                              about average
T he 49%about 35 in Jewish householdscommunities andwho are employed full time isTidewater and
  among           comparison Jewish                  compares to 55% in both
Jacksonville, 50% in St. Paul, and 41% in Tucson. The 10% employed part time is about average among
about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 12% in Tidewater, 10% in both St. Paul and
Tucson, and 8% in Jacksonville.

| The 26% retired is above average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
31% in Tucson, 22% in Jacksonville, 21% in St. Paul, and 16% in Tidewater.

| The percentage of adults in the labor force is the sum of the percentages of adults who are employed
full time, employed part time, and unemployed at the time of the survey. The 60% in the labor force is
about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 68% in Tidewater, 63%
in Jacksonville, 62% in St. Paul, and 53% in Tucson. The 60% compares to 65% of all residents (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) age 16 and over of San Antonio as of 2005 and 66% of all Americans (both
Jewish and non-Jewish) age 16 and over as of 2005.

| The unemployment rate is the percentage of adults who were unemployed at the time of the survey
divided by the percentage of adults in the labor force. The 2% unemployment rate is about average among
about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 5% in Tucson, 3% in St. Paul, and 1% in both
Tidewater and Jacksonville. The 2% compares to 7% for all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age
16 and over of San Antonio as of 2005 and 7% for all Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) age 16
and over as of 2005.




                  Employment Status of Adults in Jewish Households


                                                42
         Demographic Profile–Employment Status
                                   Table 10
         Employment Status by Age for Adult Males in Jewish Households
 Employment Status            Under 35      35-49      50-64       65-74       75+        65+
 Employed Full Time             47.1%      91.6%       78.6%      39.7%       13.1%      26.4%
 Employed Part Time              6.6         1.8         6.1       13.1        12.0       12.5
 Unemployed                      7.6         1.5         0.0        0.0        0.0         0.0
 Retired                         0.0         0.6        12.5       45.0        72.5       58.8
 Homemaker                       0.0         1.3         0.0        0.0        0.0         0.0
 Student                         38.7        1.2         1.0        0.0        0.0         0.0
 Disabled                        0.0         2.0         1.0        1.5        0.7         1.1
 Volunteer                       0.0         0.0         0.8        0.7        1.7         1.2
 Total                         100.0%      100.0%     100.0%      100.0%     100.0%      100.0%



                               Table 11
    Employment Status by Age for Adult Females in Jewish Households
 Employment Status            Under 35      35-49      50-64       65-74       75+        65+
 Employed Full Time             34.9%      52.2%       52.1%      15.0%       1.2%        8.1%
 Employed Part Time              20.9       14.4        12.4       14.6        5.0         9.8
 Unemployed                      1.9         1.9         1.3        0.0        0.0         0.0
 Retired                         0.0         1.7        17.2       55.5        81.4       68.4
 Homemaker                       14.3       27.0        16.1       12.6        9.8        11.2
 Student                         28.0        1.2         0.0        0.0        0.0         0.0
 Disabled                        0.0         0.8         0.3        0.7        1.1         0.9
 Volunteer                       0.0         0.8         0.6        1.6        1.5         1.6
 Total                         100.0%      100.0%     100.0%      100.0%     100.0%      100.0%

| 1% (62 adults) of adults in Jewish households are active military and 7% (588 adults) are retired
military.




                                              43
             Demographic Profile–Housing Value
      espondents in Jewish households in San Antonio who own their homes were asked to estimate the
R     value of their homes. The housing values are based upon respondents' perceptions and may not
represent actual selling prices. Some respondents have a reasonable idea of the selling prices of similar
homes in their neighborhoods. Some respondents may remember what they paid for their homes, but are
unaware of changes in the housing market. 8% of homeowners were unwilling or unable to provide an
estimate of the value of their homes.

| The median housing value is $228,000. The $228,000 is about average among about 30 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to $331,000 in St. Paul, $215,000 in Tidewater, and $210,000 in both
Jacksonville and Tucson. The $228,000 compares to $94,000 for all homes (both Jewish-owned and
non-Jewish-owned) in San Antonio as of 2005 and $174,000 for all American homes (both Jewish-owned
and non-Jewish-owned) as of 2005.

| The median housing value is $262,000 Inside Loop 410, $258,000 Outside Loop 1604, and $214,000
Between 410 & 1604.

| The median housing value is $260,000 for households with children and $250,000 for non-elderly
couple households, compared to $232,000 for households with only adult children, $226,000 for elderly
couple households, $177,000 for non-elderly single households, and $150,000 for elderly single
households.




                 Housing Value


                                                 44
        Demographic Profile–Household Income
      espondents in Jewish households in San Antonio were asked their household income before taxes
R     in 2006. 81% of respondents answered this question. The type of bias introduced by the lack of a
response from 19% of respondents is unknown. Not all 19% of respondents refused to answer this
question. In some cases, particularly when an adult child was interviewed, the respondent simply did not
know the household income.

| The $90,000 median household income is above average among about 45 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to $87,000 in Jacksonville, $81,000 in St. Paul, $80,000 in Tidewater, and
$64,000 in Tucson. The $90,000 compares to $61,000 nationally, $42,000 for all households (both Jewish
and non-Jewish) in San Antonio as of 2005, and $48,000 for all American households (both Jewish and
non-Jewish) as of 2005.

| The 43% earning an annual household income of $100,000 and over is the fifth highest of about 25
comparison Jewish communities that have completed studies since 2000 and compares to 33% in St. Paul,
32% in Jacksonville, 28% in Tidewater, and 23% in Tucson. The 43% compares to 21% nationally, 13%
of all households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) in San Antonio as of 2005, and 16% of all American
households (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2005.

| The $119,000 median household income of households with children is above average among about
35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to $113,000 in Jacksonville, $107,000 in St. Paul,
$98,000 in Tidewater, and $91,000 in Tucson.




                 Annual Household Income


                                                45
Demographic Profile–Household Income




       Median Household Income (in thousands)




                       46
        Demographic Profile–Household Income
Low Income Households
| Households who reported a household income under $25,000 before taxes in 2006 are low income
households. 8% (356 households) of households are low income households.

Poverty Level Households
| 1.4% (63 households) of households reported a household income before taxes in 2006 that was below
the Federal poverty levels for 2005. The 1.4% is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 5.5% in St. Paul, 2.7% in Tucson, 2.4% in Tidewater, and 0.7% in
Jacksonville. The 1.4% compares to 5.0% nationally.

| 1.5% of persons in Jewish households live below the Federal poverty levels. The 1.5% compares to
17.0% of all residents (both Jewish and non-Jewish) of San Antonio as of 2005 and 13.3% of all
Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) as of 2005.

| 1.3% (24 households) of households with elderly persons reported a household income that was below
the Federal poverty levels. The 1.3% is below average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 14.0% in St. Paul, 5.7% in Tidewater, 2.9% in Tucson, and 1.2% in Jacksonville. The
1.3% compares to 9.0% nationally.


                                          Poverty Levels
                                 Household          2005
                                   Size         Poverty Level
                                      1             $9,300
                                      2            $12,500
                                      3            $15,000
                                      4            $19,000
                                      5            $22,000




                                                47
  Religious Profile–Jewish Identification
                                                                                  Orthodox,
J ewish respondents in San Antonio were asked whether they considered themselvesrespondents
  Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, or Just Jewish. 4% (189 households) of
identify as Orthodox; 25% (1,139 households), Conservative; 2% (81 households), Reconstructionist;
39% (1,751 households), Reform; and 30% (1,341 households), Just Jewish.

| The 4% Orthodox is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
3% in Tidewater and 2% in each of St. Paul, Jacksonville, and Tucson. The 4% compares to 8%
nationally.

| The 25% Conservative is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 39% in Tidewater, 38% in Jacksonville, 32% in St. Paul, and 21% in Tucson. The 25% compares to
25% nationally.

| The 39% Reform is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
32% in Tucson, 29% in Tidewater, 28% in St. Paul, and 24% in Jacksonville. The 39% compares to 35%
nationally.

| The 30% Just Jewish is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 44% in Tucson, 37% in St. Paul, 36% in Jacksonville, and 28% in Tidewater. The 30% compares to
30% nationally.




              Jewish Identification (Jewish Respondents)


                                             48
  Religious Profile–Jewish Identification
| 17% of respondents in households in which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a child and 26%
of respondents in households in which an adult attended a synagogue school as a child identify as Just
Jewish, compared to 62% of respondents in households in which no adult attended Jewish education as
a child.

| Respondents in households in which an adult attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as a child
are less likely to identify as Just Jewish than are respondents in households in which no adult attended or
worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as a child, by 18% to 37%.

| Respondents in households in which an adult was active in a Jewish youth group as a teenager are less
likely to identify as Just Jewish than are respondents in households in which no adult was active in a
Jewish youth group as a teenager, by 21% to 39%.

| Respondents in households in which an adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college (excluding
the High Holidays) are less likely to identify as Just Jewish than are respondents in households in which
no adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college, by 17% to 35%.




        Jewish Identification by Age of Respondent (Jewish Respondents)


                                                  49
                Religious Profile–Practices
  verall, 79% of Jewish                                                                       of
O the following religioushouseholds in San Antonio contain a memberawho observes at least one or
                          practices: always or usually participate in Passover Seder, always
usually light Chanukah candles, always or usually light Sabbath candles, or keep a kosher home. The 79%
is below average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 86% in Tidewater,
85% in St. Paul, 77% in Tucson, and 75% in Jacksonville. 91% of households are involved in Jewish
activity in that they either Ø observe at least one of these practices, or Ù contain a Jewish respondent who
attends synagogue services at least once per year (other than for special occasions), or Ú are members
of a synagogue, the Jewish Community Center, or a Jewish organization, or Û donated to a Jewish charity
in the past year. The 91% is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 93% in St. Paul, 92% in Tidewater, 88% in Tucson, and 86% in Jacksonville.
| Among the comparison Jewish communities shown in the Main Report (some of which are shown in
Table 12), San Antonio has an average percentage of households who have a mezuzah on the front door
(68%), always or usually light Chanukah candles (70%), always or usually light Sabbath candles (20%),
and keep a kosher home (10%). It has an average percentage of respondents who keep kosher in and out
of the home (5%) and who refrain from using electricity on the Sabbath (2%). It has a below average
percentage of households who always or usually participate in a Passover Seder (69%).
| 1,267 persons live in households who keep a kosher home, and about 649 persons keep kosher in and
out of the home (assuming that all persons in households in which the respondent keeps kosher in and out
of the home also keep kosher in and out of the home).
| San Antonio has an average percentage of Jewish households who always, usually, or sometimes have
a Christmas tree in the home (26%). Having a Christmas tree in the home is more common among
younger households, households with children, non-elderly couple households Just Jewish households,
and intermarried households. Of households in which everyone is currently Jewish, 9% always, usually,
or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home.




                Religious Practices


                                                  50
               Religious Profile–Practices
                          Table 12: Religious Practices
                        Comparison with Other Communities
                                    Percentage Yes               Percentage Always or Usually
                                Mezuzah on Kosher Passover Chanukah Sabbath Xmas
Community               Year    Front Door Home    Seder    Candles Candles Tree
San Antonio            200 7        68%        10%       69%            70%         20%         18%
Jacksonville            2002        64%         10%       63%           68%         24%         17%
St. Paul                2004        67%         14%       76%           76%         25%         18%
Tidewater               2001        68%         10%       75%           77%         22%         22%
Tucson                  2002        58%         11%       61%           68%         17%         18%
Atlantic County         2004        77%         10%       78%           77%         14%         15%
Baltimore               1999        NA          22%       85%           79%         36%         NA
Bergen                  2001        76%         29%       85%           83%         32%         12%
Detroit                 2005        77%         22%       82%           77%         29%         11%
Hartford                2000        72%         17%       78%           78%         25%         16%
Las Vegas               2005        55%         5%        50%           64%         11%         21%
Miami                   2004        82%         22%       79%           77%         34%         8%
Milwaukee               1996        62%         13%       77%           70%         24%         18%
Minneapolis             2004        65%         13%       78%           78%         26%         16%
New York                2002        NA          28%       77%           76%         31%         NA
Phoenix                 2002       55% *        9%        62%           64%         16%         NA
Rhode Island            2002        67%         16%       73%           76%         21%         22%
Rochester               1999        68%         20%       78%           80%         28%         16%
San Diego               2003        NA          8%        64%           68%         20%         NA
Sarasota                2001        69%         6%        69%           65%         17%         12%
South Palm Beach        2005        87%         14%       80%           77%         22%         5%
Washington              2003        55%         12%       77%           70%         19%         18%
West Palm Beach         2005        83%         9%        79%           76%         17%         10%
Westport                2000        62%         6%        79%           78%         17%         21%
       1
NJPS                    2000       61% *        17%       NA             NA         23%         NA
* Question was asked about a mezuzah on any door of the house.
1
  NJPS 2000 data are for the more Jewishly-connected sample.




                                             51
             Religious Profile–Practices




Mezuzah on Front Door                 Participate in a Seder
                                      (Always + Usually)




Light Chanukah Candles                Light Sabbath Candles
(Always + Usually)                    (Always + Usually)




              Religious Practices by Age of Head of Household




                                   52
            Religious Profile–Practices




Keep a Kosher Home                         Kosher In/Out of Home (Respondents)




                     Have a Christmas Tree
                     (Always + Usually + Sometimes)




      Religious Practices by Age of Head of Household – continued




                                       53
        Religious Profile–Practices




Religious Practices in Households with Children (Always + Usually or Yes)
(Christmas Tree is Always + Usually + Sometimes)




Religious Practices by Trips to Israel (Always + Usually or Yes)
(Christmas Tree is Always + Usually + Sometimes)


                                      54
                Religious Profile–Practices
 | Intermarried households are generally much less likely to observe Jewish religious practices than are
in-married households. In general, conversionary in-married households are closer in practice to in-
married households than to intermarried households. (See the “Introduction” section of this report for
definitions of the terms in-marriage, conversionary in-marriage, and intermarriage.)




Religious Practices by Type of Marriage (Always + Usually or Yes)
(Christmas Tree is Always + Usually + Sometimes)




                                                55
   Religious Profile–Synagogue Attendance
              of Jewish respondents in San Antonio never attend synagogue services
O verall, 25%occasions, such as weddings and B’nai Mitzvah ceremonies). The 25% is(or attend only
  for special                                                                      about average
among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 38% in Tucson, 31% in Jacksonville,
23% in St. Paul, and 21% in Tidewater. The 25% compares to 40% nationally.

| The 25% who attend services once per month or more is about average among about 45 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 28% in both Tidewater and St. Paul, 26% in Jacksonville, and 21%
in Tucson. The 25% compares to 24% nationally.

| 52% of respondents in synagogue non-member households attend services at least once per year (other
than for special occasions).

| 45% of respondents in synagogue member households attend services once per month or more,
compared to 4% of respondents in synagogue non-member households.

| Respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip (43%) and respondents in
households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip (35%) are more likely to attend services once
per month or more than are respondents in households in which no adult visited Israel (16%).




                Synagogue Attendance (Jewish Respondents)


                                                  56
Religious Profile–Synagogue Attendance




   Synagogue Attendance by Various Population Subgroups
                     (Jewish Respondents)



                          57
   Religious Profile–Synagogue Attendance




Synagogue Attendance by Age of Respondent (Jewish Respondents)




                                          58
      Religious Profile–Types of Marriage
                                             most important issues for Jewish community
I ntermarriage has developed into one of thein most American Jewishthecommunities. As a and has
  clearly reached significant proportions                                                result,
intermarriage must be taken into account in local Jewish community planning. Although some intermarried
couples are contributing significantly to the Jewish community, it is also clear that when measures of
“Jewishness” for intermarried and in-married couples are compared in this and other community studies,
intermarriage is affecting Jewish continuity.

Intermarriage rates may be reported based on married couples or individuals. As an illustration, imagine
that two weddings occur. In wedding one, Moshe (a Jew) marries Rachel (also a Jew). In wedding two,
Abraham (a Jew) marries Christine (a non-Jew). Thus, there are two married couples, one of whom is
intermarried. In this illustration, the couples intermarriage rate is 50%. Another method of calculating
an intermarriage rate, however, is to note that there are three Jews (Moshe, Rachel, and Abraham) and one
of the three (Abraham) is married to a non-Jew (Christine). In this illustration, the individual intermarriage
rate is 33%.

| The San Antonio Jewish community contains 3,078 married couples. 50% (1,548 married couples) of
married couples involve in-marriages between two persons born or raised Jewish, 13% (385 married
couples) involve conversionary in-marriages, and 37% (1,145 married couples) involve intermarriages.
(See the “Introduction” section of this report for definitions of the terms in-marriage, conversionary in-
marriage, and intermarriage.) The individual intermarriage rate is 23%.

Comparisons with Other Jewish Communities
| 81% of persons in Jewish households consider themselves Jewish or, in the case of children, are being
raised Jewish. The 81% is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 81% in St. Paul, 80% in Jacksonville, 79% in Tidewater, and 78% in Tucson. The 81% compares to
78% nationally.




                           Types of Marriage (Couples Intermarriage Rate)


                                                   59
      Religious Profile–Types of Marriage
| The 37% couples intermarriage rate is about average among about 50 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 46% in Tucson, 44% in Jacksonville, 43% in Tidewater, and 39% in St. Paul. The 37%
compares to 48% nationally.

| The 35% of married couples in households age 35-49 who are intermarried is about average among
about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 63% in Tucson, 51% in both St. Paul and
Jacksonville, and 37% in Tidewater. The 35% compares to 58% nationally.

| The 43% of married couples in households age 50-64 who are intermarried is the fourth highest of
about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 51% in Tucson, 49% in Jacksonville, 42% in
Tidewater, and 34% in St. Paul. The 43% compares to 46% nationally.

| The 36% of married couples in households age 65-74 who are intermarried is the highest among about
30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 34% in Jacksonville, 23% in Tucson, 12% in
St. Paul, and 11% in Tidewater. The 36% compares to 24% nationally.

| The 26% of married couples in households age 75 and over who are intermarried is the fourth highest
of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 24% in Jacksonville, 20% in Tucson, 14%
in St. Paul, and 6% in Tidewater. The 26% compares to 19% nationally.

Geographic/Demographic Profile
| 48% of married couples Inside Loop 410, 43% of married couples Outside Loop 1604, and 30% of
married couples Between 410 & 1604 are intermarried.

| 34% of married couples in households in residence in San Antonio for 0-4 years, 43% of married
couples in households in residence for 5-19 years, and 35% of married couples in households in residence
for 20 or more years are intermarried.

| 50% of married couples in households with only adult children, 42% of married couples in non-elderly
couple households, and 39% of married couples in households with children are intermarried, compared
to 27% of married couples in elderly couple households.




                                                60
     Religious Profile–Types of Marriage
                                 Table 13
                Intermarriage (Couples Intermarriage Rate)
                    Comparison with Other Communities
Community          Year     %           Community          Year   %
Seattle            2000    55%          Orlando            1993   32%
San Francisco      2004    55%          Rochester          1999   30%
Atlanta            2006    50%          Chicago            2000   30%
Essex-Morris       1998    50%          St. Petersburg     1994   29%
Las Vegas          2005    48%          Milwaukee          1996   28%
Charlotte          1997    47%          Martin-St. Lucie   1999   27%
York               1999    46%          Atlantic County    2004   26%
Tucson             2002    46%          Buffalo            1995   26%
Boston             2005    46%          St. Louis          1995   25%
Howard County      1999    45%          Hartford           2000   23%
Columbus           2001    45%          Los Angeles        1997   23%
San Diego          2003    44%          Cleveland          1996   23%
Jacksonville       2002    44%          New York           2002   22%
Tidewater          2001    43%          Philadelphia       1997   22%
Washington         2003    41%          Sarasota           2001   20%
Phoenix            2002    40%          Palm Springs       1998   19%
Denver             1997    39%          Broward            1997   18%
St. Paul           2004    39%          Baltimore          1999   17%
San Antonio       2007     37%          Bergen             2001   17%
Pittsburgh         2002    36%          Monmouth           1997   17%
Richmond           1994    34%          Miami              2004   16%
Rhode Island       2002    34%          Detroit            2005   16%
Harrisburg         1994    33%          West Palm Beach    2005   16%
Minneapolis        2004    33%          South Palm Beach   2005   9%
Wilmington         1995    33%          NJPS               2000   48%
Westport           2000    33%




                                  61
     Religious Profile–Types of Marriage




Types of Marriage by Age of Head of Household
(Couples Intermarriage Rate)




                                          62
      Religious Profile–Types of Marriage
Religious Profile
| 59% of married couples in Just Jewish households are intermarried, compared to 32% of married
couples in Reform households, 26% of married couples in Conservative households, and 16% of married
couples in Orthodox households.

Membership Profile
| 16% of married couples in synagogue member households are intermarried, compared to 66% of
married couples in synagogue non-member households. 18% of married couples in JCC member
households are intermarried, compared to 46% of married couples in JCC non-member households. 14%
of married couples in Jewish organization member households are intermarried, compared to 49% of
married couples in Jewish organization non-member households.

Experiential Profile
| 12% of married couples in households in which an adult attended a Jewish day school as a child and
37% of married couples in households in which an adult attended a synagogue school as a child are
intermarried, compared to 61% of married couples in households in which no adult attended Jewish
education as a child.

| Married couples in households in which an adult attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as
a child are less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in households in which no adult attended
or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as a child, by 22% to 46%.

| Married couples in households in which an adult was active in a Jewish youth group as a teenager are
less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in households in which no adult was active in a
Jewish youth group as a teenager, by 24% to 51%.

| Married couples in households in which an adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college
(excluding the High Holidays) are less likely to be intermarried than are married couples in households
in which no adult participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college, by 25% to 41%.

| 18% of married couples in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 23% of
married couples in households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip are intermarried, compared
to 49% of married couples in households in which no adult visited Israel.

Philanthropic Profile
| 22% of married couples in households who donated to the Jewish Federation in the past year and 33%
of married couples in households who declined to donate when asked are intermarried, compared to 63%
of married couples in households who were not asked to donate.

| 57% of married couples in households who did not donate to the Jewish Federation in the past are
intermarried. The percentage decreases to 35% of married couples in households who donated under
$100, 19% of married couples in households who donated $100-$500, and 12% of married couples in
households who donated $500 and over.


                                                  63
      Religious Profile–Types of Marriage
Conversion and Jews-by-Choice
| The couples conversion rate is calculated by dividing the percentage of conversionary in-married
couples by the total percentage of married couples involving marriages between persons born or raised
Jewish and persons not born or raised Jewish (conversionary in-married couples and intermarried
couples). The 25% conversion rate is above average among about 45 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 24% in St. Paul, 22% in Tidewater, 20% in Jacksonville, and 15% in Tucson. Note that no
question was asked about whether a formal conversion occurred.

| 6.9% (628 persons) of Jewish persons in Jewish households are Jews-by-Choice. The 6.9% is the
fourth highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 8.0% in St. Paul, 7.2% in
Jacksonville, 5.8% in Tidewater, and 4.3% in Tucson.

Religion of Children in Jewish Households
| The 39% of children age 0-17 in intermarried households who are being raised Jewish is about average
among about 50 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 49% in Jacksonville, 45% in both
Tucson and Tidewater, and 37% in St. Paul. The 39% compares to 33% nationally. Note that respondents
defined the children in their household as born and raised Jewish, non-Jewish, or part Jewish.

| Of the Jewish children age 0-17 who are being raised in households with a married couple, 57% are
being raised in in-married households (involving marriages between two persons born or raised Jewish);
26%, in conversionary in-married households; and 17%, in intermarried households. The 17% who are
being raised in intermarried households is about average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 42% in Tucson, 31% in both Jacksonville and Tidewater, and 20% in St. Paul.

| The 77% of households with children age 0-17 at home containing Jewish children is about average
among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 85% in St. Paul, 84% in Tucson, 83%
in Tidewater, and 77% in Jacksonville.




                                               64
           Membership Profile–Synagogues
                                         Antonio are associated with the Jewish
O verall, 62% of Jewish households in Sanof a synagogue, the Jewish Communitycommunity in that
  someone in the household is a member                                          Center (JCC), or
a Jewish organization. The 62% is above average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 67% in St. Paul, 62% in Tidewater, 58% in Jacksonville, and 48% in Tucson. The 62%
compares to 51% nationally.

| According to the Telephone Survey, 52% (2,354 households) of households are current synagogue
members.

| The 52% current synagogue membership is above average among about 50 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 58% in Tidewater, 56% in St. Paul, 49% in Jacksonville, and 32% in
Tucson. The 52% compares to 40% nationally.

| According to the Synagogue Survey, 50% (2,241 households) of households are members of a local
synagogue. The Telephone Survey implies that local synagogue membership is 2 percentage points higher
than that suggested by the Synagogue Survey.

| Current synagogue membership is 60% of households with children. The 60% is about average among
about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 64% in Tidewater, 58% in Jacksonville, 54%
in St. Paul, and 41% in Tucson. The 60% compares to 55% nationally.

| Current synagogue membership increases from 42% of households earning an annual income under
$100,000 to 60% of households earning $100,000-$200,000 and 69% of households earning $200,000
and over.

| Current synagogue membership is 81% of in-married households and 63% of conversionary in-married
households, compared to 25% of intermarried households. The 25% of intermarried households who are
current synagogue members is above average among about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 37% in Tidewater, 27% in Jacksonville, 19% in St. Paul, 15% in Tucson. The 25% compares to 23%
nationally.

| 14% (612 households) of households plan to join a synagogue in the future, which represents 29% of
synagogue non-member households.

| Respondents who are not currently members of a synagogue were asked: “What is the major reason you
are not currently a member of a synagogue? Would you say it is distance from your home, quality of the local
synagogues, cost, you are not religious enough, you have no children who need a religious education now, or
some other reason?” The major reason for not joining a synagogue most commonly reported by respondents
in synagogue non-member households is not religious enough (30%). 10% of respondents reported cost; 9%,
quality of the local synagogues; 6%, distance from home; 5%, have no children who need a religious education
now; 4%, intermarried; 2%, lack of time; and 34%, other reasons.




                                                  65
Membership Profile–Synagogues




      Current Synagogue Membership



                  66
           Membership Profile–Synagogues
| Lifetime synagogue membership is defined as the percentage of households who are members of a
synagogue at some time during their adult lives. The 83% lifetime synagogue membership is the fourth highest
of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 83% in Tidewater, 82% in Jacksonville, 76%
in St. Paul, and 70% in Tucson.

| According to the Synagogue Survey, 17% of the 2,241 synagogue member households who are members
of a local synagogue are members of an Orthodox synagogue; 25%, a Conservative synagogue; 2%, a
Reconstructionist synagogue; 51%, a Reform synagogue; and 5%, other synagogues.

| The 17% membership in Orthodox synagogues is the seventh highest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 10% in Jacksonville, 7% in Tidewater, 5% in Tucson, and 4% in St. Paul. The
17% compares to 21% nationally.

| The 25% membership in Conservative synagogues is the third lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 59% in St. Paul, 53% in Tidewater, 51% in Jacksonville, and 38% in Tucson.
The 25% compares to 33% nationally.

| The 51% membership in Reform synagogues is well above average among about 35 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 53% in Tucson, 40% in Jacksonville, 39% in Tidewater, and 24% in St. Paul.
The 51% compares to 39% nationally.




                  Synagogue Membership


                                                  67
            Membership Profile–Synagogues
                              Table 14
                   Current Synagogue Membership
                  Comparison with Other Communities
Community         Year     %         Community               Year         %
Tidewater         2001    58%        New York                2002        43%
St. Paul          2004    56%        Rhode Island            2002        43%
Essex-Morris      1998    56%        Chicago                 2000        42%
St. Louis         1995    56%        St. Petersburg          1994        40%
Minneapolis       2004    54%        Miami                   2004        39%
Rochester         1999    54%        Howard County           1999        38%
Pittsburgh        2002    53%        Washington              2003        37%
Hartford          2000    53%        Denver                  1997        37%
San Antonio       2007   52%         Philadelphia            1997        37%
Baltimore         1999    52%        Martin-St. Lucie        1999        36%
Cleveland         1996    52%        Los Angeles             1997        34%
Detroit           2005    50%        Orlando                 1993        34%
Bergen            2001    50%        Atlanta                 2006        33%
Columbus          2001    50%        South Palm Beach        2005        33%
Jacksonville      2002    49%        Tucson                  2002        32%
Palm Springs      1998    49%        West Palm Beach         2005        30%
Charlotte         1997    49%        San Diego               2003        29%
Harrisburg        1994    49%        Phoenix                 2002        29%
Monmouth          1997    48%        Broward                 1997        27%
Milwaukee         1996    48%        San Francisco           2004        22%
Westport          2000    46%        Seattle                 2000        21%
Wilmington        1995    46%        Las Vegas               2005        14%
Sarasota          2001    45%        NJPS 1                  2000        40%
                                     1
York              1999    45%          NJPS 2000 data are for the more Jewishly-
Richmond          1994    45%        connected sample.

Atlantic County   2004    44%




                                68
  Membership Profile–JCC and Jewish Organizations
                                               According to the
J ewish Community Center (JCC)inMembership.are current membersTelephone Survey, 29% (1,310
  households) of Jewish households San Antonio                  of the Barshop JCC (JCC).

| The 29% local JCC membership is the fourth highest of about 45 comparison JCCs and compares to 36%
in St. Paul, 26% in Jacksonville, 19% in Tidewater, and 17% in Tucson.

| According to the JCC Survey, 25% (1,140 households) of households are current JCC members. The
Telephone Survey implies that JCC membership is 4 percentage points higher than that suggested by the JCC
Survey. Such a disparity is common in Jewish community studies.

| 42% of households with children are current JCC members. The 42% is the second highest of about 40
comparison JCCs and compares to 40% in St. Paul, 36% in Jacksonville, 35% in Tucson, and 29% in
Tidewater.

| 23% of households are members of both a synagogue and the JCC; 29% are synagogue members but are
not JCC members; 6% are JCC members but are not synagogue members; and 42% are neither synagogue
nor JCC members.

| Respondents who are not currently members of the JCC were asked: “What is the major reason you are not
a member of the Barshop Jewish Community Center? Would you say it is distance from your home, cost,
quality of the program, you have no need for the services offered, or some other reason?” The major reason
for not joining the JCC most commonly reported by respondents in JCC non-member households is no need
for the services offered (31%). 24% of respondents reported distance from home; 13%, cost; 5%, lack of
information about the JCC; 5%, lack of time; 3%, quality of the programs; 2%, too old; 2%, not religious;
and 15%, other reasons.

| 52% of households contain a member who participated in or attended a program sponsored by the Barshop
JCC in the past year. The 52% is the third highest of about 45 comparison JCCs and compares to 48% in St.
Paul, 47% in Tucson, 42% in Jacksonville, and 35% in Tidewater.

| 38% of JCC non-member households are members of a fitness facility or health club (fitness facility). The
Barshop JCC has a 52% market share of the fitness facility market among Jewish households. The 52% is the
fifth highest of about 25 comparison JCCs and compares to 59% in both St. Paul and Jacksonville, 40% in
Tidewater, and 37% in Tucson.

                                    29% of Jewish households in            are current members of
J ewish Organization Membership.about average among about 35 San AntonioJewish communities and
  a Jewish organization. The 29% is                             comparison
compares to 36% in Tidewater, 34% in St. Paul, 32% in Jacksonville, and 25% in Tucson. The 29%
compares to 25% nationally.




                                                  69
       Feel a Part of the Jewish Community
                                                                feel like           part the
J ewish respondents in San Antonio were asked: “How much do you not very you areora not atofall?” San
  Antonio Jewish community? Would you say very much, somewhat,            much,

| The 56% who feel very much or somewhat a part of the San Antonio Jewish community (Jewish
community) is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 53% in
Tidewater, 50% in Jacksonville, and 43% in Tucson.

| 63% of respondents Between 410 & 1604 and 57% Inside Loop 410 feel very much or somewhat a part of
the Jewish community, compared to 34% of respondents Outside Loop 1604.

| The percentage of respondents who feel very much or somewhat a part of the Jewish community is 52%
of respondents under age 35, 58% of respondents age 35-49, 52% of respondents age 50-64, 62% of
respondents age 65-74, and 57% of respondents age 75 and over.

| 78% of respondents in in-married households and 61% of respondents in conversionary in-married
households feel very much or somewhat a part of the Jewish community, compared to 34% of Jewish
respondents in intermarried households.




               Feel a Part of the San Antonio Jewish Community
               (Jewish Respondents)


                                              70
       Jewish Education of Adults–Formal
                  born or raised                          over) in                         Antonio
I n total, 83% of formal Jewish Jewish adults (age 18 andThe 83% Jewish households in Sanabout 35
  received some                  education as children.            is the fifth highest of
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 85% in Tidewater, 82% in Jacksonville, 78% in
Tucson, and 72% in St. Paul. The 83% compares to 73% nationally.

| 88% of born or raised Jewish adult males received some formal Jewish education as children, compared
to 78% of born or raised Jewish adult females. Born or raised Jewish adult males in all age groups were
more likely to receive some formal Jewish education as children than were born or raised Jewish adult
females.

| The 10% of born or raised Jewish adults who attended a Jewish day school as children is about average
among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 11% in Jacksonville, 10% in both
Tucson and Tidewater, and 8% in St. Paul. The 10% compares to 12% nationally.

| 93% of born or raised Jewish adults in Orthodox households, 89% of born or raised Jewish adults in
Conservative households, and 88% of born or raised Jewish adults in Reform households received some
formal Jewish education as children, compared to 70% of born or raised Jewish adults in Just Jewish
households.

| 84% of born or raised Jewish adults in in-married households, 90% of born or raised Jewish adults in
conversionary in-married households, and 80% of born or raised Jewish adults in intermarried households
received some formal Jewish education as children.




                       Formal Jewish Education Received as Children
                       by Born or Raised Jewish Adults


                                                71
       Jewish Education of Adults–Formal
| On most measures of Jewish identity, attendance at a Jewish day school or synagogue school as a child
is shown to be positively correlated with adult behaviors, although we cannot attribute cause and effect
to these relationships.




                           Born or Raised Jewish Adults Who Received
                           Some Formal Jewish Education as Children
                           by Age and Sex




     Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Received
     Some Formal Jewish Education as a Child


                                                72
     Jewish Education of Adults–Informal
      s more concerns are raised about Jewish continuity, interest has been sparked in identifying factors
A     which may be related to encouraging Jews to choose to lead a “Jewish life.” Thus, three types of
informal Jewish education were examined for born or raised Jewish adults in Jewish households in San
Antonio. Overall, 32% of born or raised Jewish adults attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp
as children, 46% were active in a Jewish youth group as teenagers, and 25% participated in Hillel/Chabad
while in college (excluding the High Holidays).

| The 32% who attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp as children is about average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 37% in St. Paul and 30% in Jacksonville. The
32% compares to 31% nationally.

| The 46% who were active in a Jewish youth group as teenagers is about average among about 25
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 47% in Jacksonville and 45% in St. Paul. The 46%
compares to 38% nationally.

| The 25% who participated in Hillel/Chabad while in college (excluding the High Holidays) is about
average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 35% in St. Paul and 32% in
Jacksonville. The 25% compares to 30% nationally.




                  Born or Raised Jewish Adults Who Attended or Worked at a
                  Jewish Sleep Away Camp as Children, Were Active in a Jewish
                  Youth Group as Teenagers, and Participated in Hillel/Chabad
                  While in College by Age


                                                 73
    Jewish Education of Adults–Informal
| On most measures of Jewish identity, all three types of informal Jewish education are shown to be
positively correlated with adult behaviors, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to these
relationships.




           Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Attended or Worked
           at a Jewish Sleep Away Camp as a Child




           Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Was Active
           in a Jewish Youth Group as a Teenager


                                              74
    Jewish Education of Adults–Informal




Households in Which a Born or Raised Jewish Adult Participated in Hillel/Chabad While in College
(Excluding the High Holidays)




                                            75
    Jewish Education of Adults–Informal
Internet Usage
| The Internet is a relatively new medium for communication and education in the Jewish community.
59% of Jewish respondents used the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past year, including
37% who used the Internet for information about the San Antonio Jewish community, which, in turn,
includes 13% who visited the Jewish Federation web site, www.jfsatx.org. The 59% who used the
Internet for Jewish-related information in the past year is the highest of about 20 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 50% in St. Paul, 42% in Jacksonville, and 41% in both Tucson and
Tidewater. The 59% compares to 40% nationally.

| 76% of respondents in households with children, 70% of respondents in non-elderly couple households,
61% of respondents in households with only adult children, and 59% of respondents in non-elderly single
households used the Internet for Jewish-related information in the past year, compared to 41% of
respondents in elderly couple households and 30% of respondents in elderly single households.

Adult Jewish Education
| 23% of Jewish respondents attended an adult Jewish education class or program in the past year. The
23% is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 30% in
Tidewater, 28% in Tucson, 27% in St. Paul, and 26% in Jacksonville. The 23% compares to 24%
nationally.

| 35% of respondents in in-married households attended an adult Jewish education class or program in
the past year, compared to 11% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households.




                      Used the Internet for Jewish-Related Information
                      in the Past Year (Jewish Respondents)


                                                76
  Jewish Education of Children–Preschool/Child Care
     ccording to the Telephone Survey, 64% (228 children) of Jewish children age 0-5 (excluding Jewish
A    children age 5 who already attend kindergarten) in San Antonio attend a Jewish preschool/child care
program; 5%, a non-Jewish preschool/child care program; and 30% do not attend a preschool/child care
program. The 64% who attend a Jewish preschool/child care program is the highest of about 30
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 50% in Jacksonville, 45% in Tucson, and 26% in both
Tidewater and St. Paul. The 64% compares to 19% nationally.

| The Jewish preschool/child care market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of Jewish
children age 0-5 in a preschool/child care program who attend a Jewish preschool/child care program.
The 92% market share is the highest of the comparison Jewish communities and compares to 81% in both
Jacksonville and Tucson, 39% in Tidewater, and 35% in St. Paul. The 92% compares to 36% nationally.

| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 86 Jewish children age 0-5 attend a Jewish preschool/child
care program at a synagogue and 117 Jewish children at the JCC.

| A total of 354 Jewish children age 0-5 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who already attend
kindergarten) live in San Antonio. Thus, according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 57% (203 children)
of Jewish children age 0-5 attend a Jewish preschool/child care program, of whom 42% attend at a
synagogue and 58%, at the JCC.

| The 57% result from the Jewish Institutions Survey is within the margin of error of the 64% result
from the Telephone Survey.




                     Preschool/Child Care Program Currently Attended
                     by Jewish Children Age 0-5


                                                 77
     Jewish Education of Children–Jewish Day School
     ccording to the Telephone Survey, 21% (183 children) of Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish
A    children age 5 who do not yet attend kindergarten) in San Antonio attend a Jewish day school; 8%,
a non-Jewish private school; and 71%, a public school.

| The 21% who attend a Jewish day school is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 41% in Jacksonville, 26% in St. Paul, 22% in Tidewater, and 20% in
Tucson. The 21% compares to 25% nationally. The 8% who attend a non-Jewish private school is about
average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 25% in Tidewater, 11% in
Tucson, 10% in St. Paul, and 8% in Jacksonville. The 8% compares to 10% nationally. The 71% who
attend a public school is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 69% in Tucson, 64% in St. Paul, 53% in Tidewater, and 52% in Jacksonville. The 71% compares to
66% nationally.

| The Jewish day school market share (market share) for Jewish children age 5-12 is defined as the
percentage of Jewish children age 5-12 in a private school who attend a Jewish day school. The 72%
market share is above average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 84% in
Jacksonville, 72% in St. Paul, 65% in Tucson, and 47% in Tidewater. The 72% compares to 72%
nationally.

| According to the Jewish Day School Survey, 111 Jewish children age 5-12 attend a Jewish day school
located in San Antonio (Eleanor Kolitz Academy).

| A total of 857 Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend
kindergarten) live in San Antonio. Thus, according to the Jewish Day School Survey, 13% of Jewish
children age 5-12 attend a Jewish day school located in San Antonio.

| The 13% result from the Jewish Day School Survey is not within the margin of error of the 21% result
from the Telephone Survey.

Seriously Investigate Sending Jewish Children to a Jewish Day School
| 13% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 currently have a Jewish child who attends a Jewish
day school; 11% (mostly households with Jewish teenagers) sent a Jewish child to a Jewish day school
in the past; 3% (households with Jewish preschool age children) will definitely send a Jewish child to a
Jewish day school in the future; 11% (households with Jewish school age children) seriously investigated
sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the past; 8% (households with Jewish preschool age
children) will seriously investigate sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the future; 44%
(households with Jewish school age children) did not seriously investigate sending a Jewish child to a
Jewish day school in the past; and 10% (households with Jewish preschool age children) will not seriously
investigate sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school in the future.

| The 54% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 who did not or will not seriously investigate
sending a Jewish child to a Jewish day school are not in the Jewish day school market. The 54% is below
average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 60% in Tucson, 58% in
St. Paul, 57% in Tidewater, and 42% in Jacksonville.


                                                 78
    Jewish Education of Children–Jewish Day School




Seriously Investigate Sending Jewish Children Age 0-17 to a Jewish Day School
(Households with Jewish Children Age 0-17)




                                            79
     Jewish Education of Children–Jewish Day School
Major Reasons for Not Sending Jewish Children to a Jewish Day School.
| Respondents in households with Jewish children age 0-17 (none of whom currently attend a Jewish day
school, have attended in the past, or will definitely attend in the future) were asked the major reasons they
did not, will not, or might not send their Jewish children to a Jewish day school. The major reasons most
commonly reported are tuition cost (31%), belief in public schools/ethnically mixed environment (23%),
quality of other private or public schools (19%), school is too religious for family/family is not religious
(13%), distance from home (10%), curriculum issues (6%), quality of education at Jewish day schools
(6%), have a special needs child (4%), and availability of sports/extracurricular activities (4%).

| The 31% who reported tuition cost is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 37% in St. Paul, 30% in Jacksonville, 22% in Tucson, and 19% in Tidewater.

| The 23% who reported belief in public schools/ethnically mixed environment is about average among
about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 34% in Tucson, 31% in St. Paul, 20% in
Tidewater, and 18% in Jacksonville.

| The 19% who reported quality of other private or public schools is the highest of about 25
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 15% in St. Paul, 11% in Tucson, and 7% in both
Jacksonville and Tidewater.

| The 13% who reported school is too religious for family/family is not religious is about average
among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 20% in Tucson, 12% in St. Paul, 8%
in Tidewater, and 7% in Jacksonville.

| The 10% who reported distance from home is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 30% in Jacksonville, 22% in both St. Paul and Tidewater, and 6% in
Tucson.

| The 6% who reported quality of education at Jewish day schools is about average among about 25
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 7% in Jacksonville, 5% in both St. Paul and Tidewater,
and 1% in Tucson.

| The 4% who reported have a special needs child is the second highest of about 25 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 5% in Jacksonville, 2% in both St. Paul and Tucson, and 0% in Tidewater.




                                                   80
   Jewish Education of Children–School Age Children
     ewish Children Age 5-12 (Pre-B’nai Mitzvah). According to the Telephone Survey, 77% (661
J    children) of Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend
kindergarten) in San Antonio currently attend formal Jewish education. The 77% compares to 76%
nationally.

| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 381 Jewish children age 5-12 attend a synagogue school
and 111 children, a Jewish day school.

| A total of 857 Jewish children age 5-12 (excluding Jewish children age 5 who do not yet attend
kindergarten) live in San Antonio. Thus, according to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 57% (492 children)
of Jewish children age 5-12 currently attend formal Jewish education, including 44% who attend a
synagogue school and 13%, a Jewish day school. 43% (365 children) of Jewish children age 5-12 do not
currently attend formal Jewish education.

| The 57% result from the Jewish Institutions Survey is not within the margin of error of the 77% result
from the Telephone Survey.

| The 57% of Jewish children age 5-12 who currently attend formal Jewish education according to the
Jewish Institutions Survey is well below average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 74% in Tidewater, 66% in both St. Paul and Jacksonville, and 53% in Tucson.

     ewish Children Age 13-17 (Post-B’nai Mitzvah). According to the Telephone Survey, 39% (222
J    children) of Jewish children age 13-17 in San Antonio currently attend formal Jewish education.

| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 149 Jewish children age 13-17 attend a synagogue school;
83 children, a Jewish supplemental school (Chai High School); and 14 children, a Jewish day school
(Eleanor Kolitz Academy).

| A total of 573 Jewish children age 13-17 live in San Antonio. Thus, according to the Jewish Institutions
Survey, 43% (246 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 currently attend formal Jewish education,
including 26% who attend a synagogue school; 14%, a Jewish supplemental school; and 2%, a Jewish
day school. 57% (327 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 do not currently attend formal Jewish
education.

| The 43% result from the Jewish Institutions Survey is within the margin of error of the 39% result
from the Telephone Survey.

| The 43% of Jewish children age 13-17 who currently attend formal Jewish education according to the
Jewish Institutions Survey is the fourth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 39% in St. Paul, 28% in Jacksonville, 21% in Tucson, and 19% in Tidewater.

| 89% of Jewish children age 13-17 have received some formal Jewish education (either currently attend
or have attended in the past), including 64% at a synagogue school and 26% at a Jewish day school.
Assuming that no Jewish children age 13-17 who have not yet received any formal Jewish education will
attend Jewish education in the future, it suggests that 11% of Jewish children will not receive any formal
Jewish education.


                                                 81
 Jewish Education of Children–School Age Children

                                 Table 15
                         Jewish Children Age 5-12
               Who Currently Attend Formal Jewish Education
                    Comparison with Other Communities
Community           Year     %          Community          Year       %
Westport            2000    96%         Wilmington          1995     59%
Rhode Island        2002    91%         Richmond            1994     58%
Milwaukee           1996    83%         San Antonio        2007      57%

Charlotte           1997    82%         Miami               2004     56%
Sarasota            2001    82%         Washington          2003     56%
Monmouth            1997    79%         Atlantic County     2004     56%
Tidewater           2001    74%         South Palm Beach    2005     56%
Bergen              2001    73%         Tucson              2002     53%
Hartford            2000    73%         Orlando             1993     50%
Martin-St. Lucie    1999    73%         West Palm Beach     2005     46%
Minneapolis         2004    71%         Broward             1997     45%
York                1999    67%         Las Vegas           2005     45%
St. Paul            2004    66%         St. Petersburg      1994     40%
Harrisburg          1994    66%         Note: Data are based upon the Jewish
                                        Institutions Survey.
Jacksonville        2002    66%
Rochester           1999    62%




                                  82
  Jewish Education of Children–School Age Children




Jewish Children Age 13-17 Who Received Some Formal Jewish Education




                                         83
  Jewish Education of Children–Informal
                                                     children in San Antonio
T hree types of informal Jewish education of Jewish and Jewish teenage youth are addressed by this
  study: Jewish day camp, Jewish sleep away camp,                             group.

Jewish Day Camp
| According to the Telephone Survey, 33% (537 children) of Jewish children age 3-17 attended or worked
at a Jewish day camp this past summer (the summer of 2006); 10%, a non-Jewish day camp; and 58%
did not attend or work at a day camp. The 33% who attended or worked at a Jewish day camp this past
summer is the highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 32% in Jacksonville,
23% in Tidewater, 22% in St. Paul, and 15% in Tucson. The 33% compares to 27% nationally.
| The Jewish day camp market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of Jewish children age
3-17 attending or working at a day camp this past summer who attended or worked at a Jewish day camp.
The 78% market share is the fourth highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 81% in Jacksonville, 73% in St. Paul, 64% in Tidewater, and 50% in Tucson. The 78% compares to
56% nationally.
| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 166 Jewish children age 3-17 attended or worked at a day
camp this past summer at a synagogue and 210 children, at the JCC.
| A total of 1,627 Jewish children age 3-17 live in San Antonio. Thus, according to the Jewish
Institutions Survey, 23% (376 children) of Jewish children age 3-17 attended or worked at a Jewish day
camp this past summer, of whom 44% attended or worked at a synagogue and 56%, at the JCC.
| The 23% result from the Jewish Institutions Survey is not within the margin of error of the 33% result
from the Telephone Survey.




                         Jewish Children Age 3-17 Who Attended or
                         Worked at a Day Camp This Past Summer


                                                84
  Jewish Education of Children–Informal
Jewish Sleep Away Camp
| 14% (194 children) of Jewish children age 6-17 attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp this
past summer (the summer of 2006); 5%, a non-Jewish sleep away camp; and 80% did not attend or work
at a sleep away camp.

| The 14% who attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp this past summer is about average
among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 19% in Jacksonville, 18% in St. Paul,
11% in Tidewater, and 8% in Tucson.

| The Jewish sleep away camp market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of Jewish
children age 6-17 attending or working at a sleep away camp this past summer who attended or worked
at a Jewish sleep away camp. The 73% market share is above average among about 25 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 84% in Tucson, 83% in Jacksonville, 74% in St. Paul, and 55% in
Tidewater.




               Jewish Children Age 6-17 Who Attended or Worked
               at Sleep Away Camp This Past Summer



                                              85
  Jewish Education of Children–Informal
Jewish Teenage Youth Group
| According to the Telephone Survey, 48% (277 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 regularly
participate (participate) in a Jewish teenage youth group.

| According to the Jewish Institutions Survey, 90 Jewish children age 13-17 participate in a Jewish
teenage youth group at a synagogue and 60 children, in an independent Jewish teenage youth group (B’nai
B’rith Youth Organization).

| A total of 573 Jewish children age 13-17 live in San Antonio. Thus, according to the Jewish Institutions
Survey, 26% (150 children) of Jewish children age 13-17 participate in a Jewish teenage youth group, of
whom 60% participate in a synagogue youth group and 40%, in an independent Jewish teenage youth
group.

| The 26% result from the Jewish Institutions Survey is not within the margin of error of the 48% result
from the Telephone Survey.

| The 26% who participate in a Jewish teenage youth group according to the Jewish Institutions Survey
is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 43% in Tidewater,
34% in both St. Paul and Tucson, and 21% in Jacksonville.



**************************************************************************************
     verall Involvement in Jewish Education. 72% of Jewish children age 0-17 in San Antonio are
O    involved in some type of formal or informal Jewish education in that they:
       Ø currently attend a Jewish preschool/child care program, or
       Ù currently attend a Jewish day school, or
       Ú currently attend a synagogue school, or
       Û attended or worked at a Jewish day camp this past summer, or
       Ü attended or worked at a Jewish sleep away camp this past summer, or
       Ý currently participate in a Jewish teenage youth group.




                                                 86
                Jewish Agencies–Familiarity
      espondents in Jewish households in San Antonio were asked whether they are very familiar,
R     somewhat familiar, or not at all familiar with the Jewish Federation of San Antonio and its agencies.
The majority of the San Antonio Jewish community is very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish
Federation and its agencies, ranging from the 55% of respondents who are very or somewhat familiar with
the Eleanor Kolitz Academy to the 84% who are very or somewhat familiar with the Barshop Jewish
Community Center.

| 46% of respondents are very familiar, 38% are somewhat familiar, and 16% are not at all familiar with
the Barshop Jewish Community Center (JCC). The 46% very familiar is above average among about
35 comparison JCCs and compares to 54% in St. Paul, 45% in Tidewater, 44% in Jacksonville, and 39%
in Tucson.

| 36% of respondents are very familiar, 33% are somewhat familiar, and 31% are not at all familiar with
the Golden Manor Jewish Home for the Aged (Golden Manor). The 36% very familiar is about average
among about 25 comparison Jewish nursing homes and compares to 43% in Jacksonville, 36% in
Tidewater, 32% in St. Paul, and 23% in Tucson. The 50% of respondents age 65 and over who are very
familiar with Golden Manor is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish nursing homes and
compares to 54% in Tidewater, 50% in St. Paul, 48% in Jacksonville, and 27% in Tucson.

| 32% of respondents are very familiar, 44% are somewhat familiar, and 24% are not at all familiar with
the Jewish Federation of San Antonio (Federation). The 32% very familiar is the fifth highest of about
30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 35% in Tidewater, 23% in Jacksonville, 21% in
St. Paul, and 15% in Tucson.

| 23% of respondents are very familiar, 38% are somewhat familiar, and 39% are not at all familiar with
the Jewish Family and Children’s Service (JFCS). The 23% very familiar is above average among about
30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in Tidewater, 27% in Jacksonville, 22% in
St. Paul, and 16% in Tucson.

| 21% of respondents are very familiar, 39% are somewhat familiar, and 41% are not at all familiar with
the Holocaust Museum and Memorial at the Jewish Campus (Holocaust Museum).

| 21% of respondents are very familiar, 34% are somewhat familiar, and 45% are not at all familiar with
the Eleanor Kolitz Academy (EKA). The 21% very familiar is above average among about 20
comparison Jewish day schools and compares to 33% in Jacksonville, 30% in Tidewater, and 16% in
Tucson.

| 39% of respondents in households with Jewish children are very familiar, 42% are somewhat familiar,
and 19% are not at all familiar with EKA. The 39% very familiar is the sixth highest of about 40
comparison Jewish day schools and compares to 58% in Jacksonville, 50% in St. Paul (Talmud Torah),
37% in Tidewater, 27% in Tucson, 17% in St. Paul (Jewish Middle), and 10% in St. Paul (Chabad
Academy).



                                                  87
                Jewish Agencies–Familiarity


| 92% of respondents are at least somewhat familiar with at least one of the agencies queried. The 92%
is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 93% in Tucson, 90%




Familiarity with Jewish Agencies
(Respondents)


in both St. Paul and Tidewater, and 88% in Jacksonville.




                                               88
                Jewish Agencies–Perception
      espondents in Jewish households in San Antonio who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with
R     the Jewish Federation of San Antonio and its agencies were asked to provide perceptions of those
agencies on a scale of excellent, good, fair, and poor. Many respondents who are only somewhat familiar,
and some respondents who are very familiar, with an agency were unable to provide a perception of that
agency. 83%-94% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the agencies have
positive (excellent and good) perceptions of the Jewish Federation and its agencies.

| 46% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Barshop Jewish Community
Center (JCC) perceive it as excellent; 47%, good; 6%, fair; and 1%, poor. The 46% excellent
perceptions is above average among about 35 comparison JCCs and compares to 54% in St. Paul, 53%
in Tucson, 43% in Jacksonville, and 41% in Tidewater.

| 40% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Golden Manor Jewish Home
for the Aged (Golden Manor) perceive it as excellent; 46%, good; 9%, fair; and 5%, poor. The 40%
excellent perceptions is below average among about 20 comparison Jewish nursing homes and compares
to 60% in Jacksonville, 48% in Tidewater, 46% in Tucson, and 31% in St. Paul. The 50% excellent
perceptions of respondents age 65 and over who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with Golden
Manor is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish nursing homes and compares to 73% in
Jacksonville, 49% in Tidewater, 41% in Tucson, and 37% in St. Paul.

| 33% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Federation of San
Antonio (Federation) perceive it as excellent; 53%, good; 12%, fair; and 3%, poor. The 33% excellent
perceptions is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 34% in
Tucson, 32% in both Jacksonville and Tidewater, and 29% in St. Paul.

| 36% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Jewish Family and
Children’s Service (JFCS) perceive it as excellent; 47%, good; 13%, fair; and 4%, poor. The 36%
excellent perceptions is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to
51% in Tidewater, 48% in Jacksonville, 41% in Tucson, and 40% in St. Paul.

| 42% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Holocaust Museum and
Memorial at the Jewish Campus (Holocaust Museum) perceive it as excellent; 49%, good; 8%, fair;
and 1%, poor.

| 35% of respondents who are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy
(EKA) perceive it as excellent; 50%, good; 13%, fair; and 2%, poor. The 35% excellent perceptions is
about average among about 20 comparison Jewish day schools and compares to 55% in Jacksonville, 45%
in Tucson, and 41% in Tidewater.

| 31% of respondents in households with Jewish children who are very familiar or somewhat familiar
with the Eleanor Kolitz Academy (EKA) perceive it as excellent; 48%, good; 18%, fair; and 3%, poor.
The 31% excellent perceptions is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish day schools and



                                                89
               Jewish Agencies–Perception
compares to 60% in Jacksonville, 42% in St. Paul (Jewish Middle), 41% in both St. Paul (Talmud Torah)
and Tidewater, 35% in Tucson, and 23% in St. Paul (Chabad Academy).




Perception of Jewish Agencies (Respondents Who Are Very or Somewhat Familiar with the Agency)




                                               90
                           Social Service Needs
                    households) of                     in San Antonio contain member            a
I n total, 17% (761 or other health Jewish households lasted for six months ora more andwho hasor
  physical, mental,                 condition that has                                   limits
prevents employment, educational opportunities, or daily activities (households in which a member is
health limited). The respondent defined “physical, mental, or other health condition” for himself/herself.
The 17% is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 22% in
St. Paul, 19% in Tucson, and 14% in both Jacksonville and Tidewater. The 17% compares to 13%
nationally.

| Included in the 17% of households in which a member is health limited are 5% (225 households) in
which a member needs daily assistance as a result of his/her condition. The 5% is about average among
about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 7% in St. Paul, 6% in Jacksonville, 5% in
Tucson, and 4% in Tidewater. The 5% compares to 4% nationally.

| 1% (80 adults) of adults in Jewish households are disabled and consequently unable to work.

| 1% (23 households) of households contain a disabled adult child (age 18 and over) who is unable to
work and lives at home with his/her parents or other adults.

| 5% (216 households) of households contain a member who needs assistance with one or more activities
of daily living (doing laundry, grocery shopping, preparing meals, bathing or showering, managing
medicines, getting around inside the home, taking care of appearance, dressing, managing money, using
the bathroom, and eating). 5% of households contain a member who needs assistance with two or more
activities of daily living.

| 10%(175 households) of households with elderly persons contain a member who needs assistance with
one or more activities of daily living; 9% (161 households) of households with elderly persons contain
a member who needs assistance with two or more activities of daily living.

        hile the best indicators of social service needs include such factors as age, household structure, and
W       household income, respondents in Jewish households in San Antonio were asked directly about
their need for a variety of social services in the past year. When respondents reported that their
households needed a service, they were asked whether the service had been received. If the households
received the service, the respondents were asked whether the service had been received from a Jewish
source (Jewish help) or a non-Jewish source (other help). In examining these results, it should be noted
that some respondents may feel uneasy about admitting the need for some of these services. Thus, it is
likely that this study underestimates the actual need for social services in the past year.

| The 10% (468 households) of households who needed marital, family, or personal counseling
(counseling) in the past year is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 16% in Tucson, 14% in Tidewater, 13% in St. Paul, and 9% in Jacksonville.




                                                   91
                         Social Service Needs
| The 13% (594 households) of households who needed help in coordinating services for an elderly or
disabled person (coordinating services) in the past year is about average among about 15 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 16% in St. Paul, 14% in Tucson, 13% in Tidewater, and 10% in
Jacksonville.

| 2% (77 households) of households needed financial assistance in the past year. Note that this question
was asked only of households earning an annual income under $25,000 and that households earning an
annual income of $25,000 and over were assumed, for the purpose of this analysis, not to have needed
financial assistance in the past year.

| The 10% (310 households) of households with adults age 18-64 who needed help in finding a job or
choosing an occupation (job counseling) in the past year is about average among about 25 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 16% in St. Paul, 11% in Tucson, 9% in Tidewater, and 3% in
Jacksonville. The 10% compares to 10% nationally.

| The 28% (339 households) of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 who were interested in
singles programs in the past year is the third highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 28% in St. Paul, 23% in Tucson, 22% in Jacksonville, and 12% in Tidewater. 18% of
households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 have used a Jewish Internet dating service at some time.

| The 14% (134 households) of households with Jewish children age 0-17 who needed programs for
Jewish children with learning disabilities or other special needs such as developmental disabilities
(learning disabled programs) in the past year is the highest of about 25 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 11% in St. Paul and 10% in each of Tucson, Tidewater, and Jacksonville.

| Most households who received social services in the past year received them from non-Jewish sources,
except for singles programs.

Social Services for the Elderly
| The 17% (301 households) of households with elderly persons who needed in-home health care in the
past year is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 18% in
Jacksonville, 16% in St. Paul, 13% in Tucson, and 9% in Tidewater. The 17% compares to 15%
nationally.

| The 7% (119 households) of households with elderly persons who needed senior transportation in the
past year is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 23% in St.
Paul, 10% in Jacksonville, 9% in Tucson, and 4% in Tidewater.

| The 4% (68 households) of households with elderly persons who needed an assisted living facility in
the past year is the highest of about ten comparison Jewish communities and compares to 3% in both
Jacksonville and Tucson.




                                                92
                          Social Service Needs
| The 3% (57 households) of households with elderly persons who needed adult day care in the past year
is the fifth highest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 4% in Jacksonville,
3% in St. Paul, 2% in Tucson, and 1% in Tidewater.

| The 2% (33 households) of households with elderly persons who needed nursing home care in the past
year is the fourth lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 7% in St. Paul,
4% in Jacksonville, 3% in Tucson, and 2% in Tidewater.

| The 2% (29 households) of households with elderly persons who needed home-delivered meals in the
past year is about average among about 25 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 8% in
St. Paul, 5% in Jacksonville, 2% in Tucson, and 1% in Tidewater.

| Most households with elderly persons who received social services for the elderly in the past year
received them from non-Jewish sources.

Unmet Needs
| 250 households with single Jewish adults age 18-64 had unmet needs for singles programs in the past
year; 198 households with adults age 18-64, for job counseling; 77 households, for counseling;
32 households, for coordinating services; 32 households, for financial assistance; and 25 households with
Jewish children age 0-17, for learning disabled programs.

| 49 households with elderly persons had unmet needs for senior transportation in the past year;
29 households, for an assisted living facility; 13 households, for adult day care; 7 households, for nursing
home care; 5 households, for in-home health care; and 5 households, for home-delivered meals.

Households Who Care for Relatives Who Live Outside the Respondent’s Home
| 13% of households in which the respondent is age 40 or over have an elderly relative who lives outside
the respondent’s home and who in some way depends upon the household for his/her care (caregiver
households). The respondent defined “care” for himself/herself. The 13% is about average among about
15 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 20% in St. Paul, 13% in both Tidewater and Tucson,
and 12% in Jacksonville.

| Included in the 13% of caregiver households are 8% in which the elderly relative lives in San Antonio
and 5% in which the elderly relative lives elsewhere.

| 17% of caregiver households care for elderly relatives who live in an assisted living facility; 16%, in
a nursing home; and 67%, in their own home.




                                                  93
                           Social Service Needs




Need for Social Services in the Past Year
* Of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64.
** Of households with Jewish children age 0-17.
*** Of households with adults age 18-64.




                                                   94
     Social Service Needs




Need for Elderly Social Services in the Past Year
in Households with Elderly Persons




Disposition of Need for Selected Social Services
in the Past Year
* Of households with single Jewish adults age 18-64.
** Of households with elderly persons.



                             95
     Social Service Needs




Households in Which a Member Needs Assistance
with Activities of Daily Living




Households Who Care for an Elderly Relative
(Households in Which the Respondent Is Age 40 or Over)


                          96
                         Social Service Needs
                   age
J ewish respondentshave40 and over in San Antonio were asked whether they would very much prefer,
  somewhat prefer,      no preference for, or rather not use Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities if
they or, in the case of respondents under age 60, an elderly relative needed senior housing or a nursing
home.

| The 46% who would very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities is well below average
among about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 64% in Jacksonville, 56% in St. Paul,
55% in Tidewater, and 43% in Tucson.

| Among respondents age 40 and over, 85% of Orthodox Jews and 68% of Conservative Jews would
very much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities, compared to 37% of Reform Jews and 32% of
the Just Jewish. 43% of the Just Jewish and 26% of Reform Jews would have no preference.

| 60% of respondents age 40 and over in in-married households would very much prefer
Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities, compared to only 24% of Jewish respondents in intermarried
households. 46% of Jewish respondents in intermarried households would have no preference.

| 56% of respondents age 40 and over in households in which a member visited Israel on a Jewish trip
and 58% of respondents in households in which a member visited Israel on a general trip would very
much prefer Jewish-sponsored adult care facilities, compared to 39% of respondents in households in
which no adult visited Israel.




                    Preference for Jewish-Sponsored Adult Care Facilities
                    (Jewish Respondents Age 40 and Over)


                                                97
                                     Israel–Visits
                                                                                           42%
O verall, 42% of Jewish households in San Antonio contain a member who visited Israel. The Paul,
  is about average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 49% in St.
43% in Tucson, 40% in Tidewater, and 37% in Jacksonville.

| 20% of households contain a member who visited Israel on a Jewish trip. The 20% is about average
among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 25% in St. Paul, 22% in Tidewater,
and 18% in both Tucson and Jacksonville.

| 22% of households contain a member who visited Israel on a general trip. The 22% is about average
among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 25% in both St. Paul and Tucson, 19%
in Jacksonville, and 17% in Tidewater.

| The Jewish trip market share (market share) is defined as the percentage of households in which a
member who visited Israel visited on a Jewish trip. The 47% market share is about average among about
30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 56% in Tidewater, 50% in St. Paul, 48% in
Jacksonville, and 42% in Tucson.

Trips to Israel by Jewish Children
| 6% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a Jewish trip and
11%, on a general trip. In total, 17% of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish
child on a trip to Israel. The 17% is above average among about 35 comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 17% in St. Paul, 13% in both Tucson and Tidewater, and 7% in Jacksonville. The 6% who
have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a Jewish trip is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 13% in Tucson, 10% in both St. Paul and Tidewater, and 5% in
Jacksonville. The 11% who have sent a Jewish child to Israel on a general trip is the third highest of about
30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 8% in St. Paul, 3% in Tidewater, 2% in
Jacksonville, and 1% in Tucson.

| 17% (160 households) of households with Jewish children age 0-17 have sent a Jewish child/teenager
on a trip to Israel in the past, 9% (80 households) will definitely send a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel
in the future, 47% (441 households) will seriously investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a trip to
Israel, 8% (78 households) don’t know if they will seriously investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a
trip to Israel, and 19% (173 households) will not seriously investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a trip
to Israel. The 19% who will not seriously investigate sending a Jewish teenager on a trip to Israel is about
average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 16% in Tidewater, 15% in both
Jacksonville and Tucson, and 13% in St. Paul. Note that the comparisons with other Jewish communities
need to be examined in light of the events occurring in Israel at the time of each study.

Correlations of Jewish Behaviors with Trips to Israel
| Visits to Israel by an adult in the household, particularly on a Jewish trip, are shown to be positively
correlated with levels of religious practice, membership, philanthropy, and other measures of Jewish
identity, although we cannot attribute cause and effect to this relationship.



                                                   98
               Israel–Visits




Households in Which a Member Visited Israel




Correlations of Jewish Behaviors with Trips to Israel


                           99
            Emotional Attachment to Israel

J ewish respondents in San Antonio were asked: “How emotionally attached are you to Israel? Would
  you say extremely, very, somewhat, or not attached?” 23% of respondents are extremely attached,
32% are very attached, 33% are somewhat attached, and 12% are not attached to Israel. In total, 55%
of respondents are extremely or very attached to Israel.

| The 55% who are extremely or very attached to Israel is the fifth highest of about 30 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 56% in Jacksonville, 50% in St. Paul, 47% in Tucson, and 40%
in Tidewater.

| 76% of respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a Jewish trip and 68% of
respondents in households in which an adult visited Israel on a general trip are extremely or very attached
to Israel, compared to 42% of respondents in households in which no adult visited Israel.




         Extremely or Very Attached to Israel (Jewish Respondents)




                                                100
                                    Anti-Semitism
  verall, 14%        households) of Jewish             in San Antonio personally experienced
O anti-Semitism(648 San Antonio in the pastrespondents respondent defined “anti-Semitism” for
                 in                         year. The
himself/herself. The 14% is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares
to 21% in Jacksonville and 18% in each of St. Paul, Tucson, and Tidewater.

| 34% of households with Jewish children age 6-17 contain a Jewish child age 6-17 who experienced
anti-Semitism in San Antonio in the past year, mainly at school. The 34% is the highest of about 25
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 23% in Tidewater, 20% in Jacksonville, 10% in
St. Paul, and 9% in Tucson.

| 4% of respondents perceive a great deal of anti-Semitism in San Antonio; 23%, a moderate amount;
57%, a little; and 16%, none at all. In total, 26% of respondents perceive a great deal or moderate amount
of anti-Semitism in San Antonio. The 26% is the second lowest of about 30 comparison Jewish
communities and compares to 48% in Jacksonville, 45% in both St. Paul and Tidewater, and 24% in
Tucson.




              Personally Experienced Anti-Semitism in San Antonio in the Past Year
              (Jewish Respondents) and Perceive a Great Deal or Moderate Amount of
              Anti-Semitism in San Antonio (Respondents) by Age of Respondent


                                                101
                                       The Media
                        respondents in San Antonio always                  Journal of
O verall, 41% of Jewish usually; 22%, sometimes; and 29%, read the Jewish49% (2,205 San Antonio
  (Jewish Journal); 8%,                                   never. In total,            households)
of respondents always or usually read the Jewish Journal and 71% (3,204 households) always, usually,
or sometimes do. The Jewish Journal is published by the Jewish Federation of San Antonio (Jewish
Federation) and is distributed to about 3,100 of the households on the Jewish Federation mailing list.

| The 49% who always or usually read the local Jewish newspaper is the second highest of about 20
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 48% in Jacksonville, 47% in Tidewater, 42% in
Tucson, and 35% in St. Paul.

| 55% of Jewish respondents always read the San Antonio Express-News (Express-News); 8%, usually;
27%, sometimes; and 9%, never. In total, 64%(2,862 households) of respondents always or usually read
the Express-News, and 91% (4,095 households) always, usually, or sometimes do.

| 14% of Jewish respondents always read the religion page of the Express-News; 6%, usually; 36%,
sometimes; and 44%, never. In total, 20% (834 households) of respondents always or usually read the
religion page of the Express-News, and 56% (2,363 households) always, usually, or sometimes do.

| 33% of Jewish respondents who always, usually, or sometimes read the Jewish Journal perceive it as
excellent; 53%, good; 12%, fair; and 1%, poor.

| The 33% excellent perceptions is
well above average among about 20
comparison Jewish newspapers and
compares to 35% in Jacksonville and
14% in St. Paul (both the American
Jewish World and the Twin Cities
Jewish Life).




                                        Always or Usually Read the Jewish Journal
                                        (Jewish Respondents)



                                              102
       Philanthropic Profile–Overall Donations
          91%                       in                                donated
O verall,Jewishof Jewish householdsthe San Antonio reported that theyreported to one or more charities
  (both         and non-Jewish) in     past year. 53% of households           that they donated to the
Jewish Federation of San Antonio (JFSA) in the past year; 55%, to other Jewish charities (Jewish charities
other than Jewish Federations); and 82%, to non-Jewish charities.

| 17% of households donated to a charity over the Internet in the past year, including 5% to a Jewish
charity.




Donated to JFSA in the Past Year                       JFSA Market Segments in the Past Year




Donated to Other Jewish Charities                      Donated to Non-Jewish Charities
in the Past Year                                       in the Past Year


                                                103
            Philanthropic Profile–JFSA Donations
     ccording to the Jewish Federation Survey, 32% (1,437 households) of Jewish households in San
A    Antonio donated to JFSA in the past year. According to the Telephone Survey, 53% (2,390
households) of households reported that they donated to JFSA in the past year. Such a large disparity is
common in Jewish community studies.

| The 53% who donated to the local Jewish Federation in the past year according to the Telephone
Survey is the fifth highest of about 45 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 49% in Tidewater,
46% in St. Paul, 39% in Jacksonville, and 33% in Tucson.

| The 39% who were not asked to donate to the local Jewish Federation in the past year is the fifth
lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 55% in Tucson, 41% in Jacksonville,
40% in St. Paul, and 39% in Tidewater. The 39% compares to 64% nationally for any Jewish Federation.

| The percentage of households not asked to donate to JFSA in the past year decreases from 69% of
households under age 35 to 40% of households age 35-64 and 33% of households age 65 and over.

| The 54% of households age 35-49 who donated to the local Jewish Federation in the past year is the
second highest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 53% in Tidewater, 39% in
St. Paul, 38% in Jacksonville, and 27% in Tucson. The 54% compares to 21% nationally for any Jewish
Federation.

| Of the households asked to donate to JFSA in the past year, 13% did not donate. The 13% is the fourth
lowest of about 35 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 31% in Jacksonville, 26% in Tucson,
17% in St. Paul, and 16% in Tidewater. The 13% compares to 24% nationally for any Jewish Federation.




Method of Donation to JFSA in the Past Year           Quality of the Solicitation by JFSA
(Households Who Donated $100 and Over to              in the Past Year (Respondents in Households
JFSA in the Past Year)                                Who Donated $100 and Over to JFSA in the Past
                                                      Year by Telephone, in-Person, or at an Event)


                                               104
           Philanthropic Profile–JFSA Donations
| 2% of households who donated to JFSA in the past year are under age 35, 24% are age 35-49, 34% are
age 50-64, 21% are age 65-74, and 19% are age 75 and over. 27% of households who donated are
households with children; 25% are elderly couple households; 17% are non-elderly couple households;
and 13% are elderly single households. 16% of households who donated earn an annual income under
$50,000 and 23% earn $200,000 and over. 5% of households who donated are Orthodox; 28%,
Conservative; 3%, Reconstructionist; 48%, Reform; and 16%, Just Jewish.

| 47% of households who donated $500 and over to JFSA in the past year are age 65 and over. 54% of
households who donated $500 and over are Reform; 28%, Conservative; 11%, Just Jewish;
6%, Orthodox; and 1%, Reconstructionist. 89% of households who donated $500 and over are synagogue
members; 58%, JCC members; and 59%, Jewish organization members.




     Donated to JFSA in the Past Year by Age of Head of Household


                                             105
Philanthropic Profile–JFSA Donations




       Donated to JFSA in the Past Year


                   106
            Philanthropic Profile–JFSA Donations
Annual Campaign
| According to the Jewish Federation Survey, the JFSA Annual Campaign increased by 2% from
$2,105,940 in 1996 (adjusted for inflation) to $2,153,750 in 2006.

| According to the Jewish Federation Survey, the number of Jewish donors to the JFSA Annual
Campaign decreased by 16% from 2,241 donors in 1996 to 1,879 donors in 2006. The number of
households who donated increased by 92 households, suggesting a decrease in multiple gifts per
household.

| The average donation per household (4,500 households) of $479 is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to $760 in Tidewater, $617 in St. Paul, $325 in
Jacksonville, and $273 in Tucson.

| In addition to the Annual Campaign, over the past decade, JFSA and its agencies coordinated capital
campaigns in which a total of $19,983,000 was raised. Adjusted for inflation, these campaigns raised a
total of $25,249,000.




              JFSA Annual Campaign
              (Adjusted for Inflation, in millions)


                                               107
             Philanthropic Profile–JFSA Donations
                               Table 16
     Average Donation per Household to the Local Jewish Federation
Community          Year   Amount         Community                 Year      Amount
Detroit            2005   $1,161         Tucson                    2002        $273
Minneapolis        2004    $978          South Palm Beach          2005        $267
Cleveland          1996    $923          Wilmington                1995        $236
Baltimore          1999    $788          Philadelphia              1997        $235
Tidewater          2001    $760          Denver                    1997        $225
Milwaukee          1996    $759          Orlando                   1993        $224
Charlotte          1997    $694          Washington                2003        $218
Columbus           2001    $666          New York                  2002        $218
St. Paul           2004    $617          Buffalo                   1995        $218
Pittsburgh         2002    $573          Westport                  2000        $212
Chicago            2000    $539          Los Angeles               1997        $192
Richmond           1994    $525          San Diego                 2003        $155
Essex-Morris       1998    $505          Phoenix                   2002        $128
Harrisburg         1994    $493          Monmouth                  1997         $96
San Antonio        2007   $479           St. Petersburg            1994         $92
Rochester          1999    $453          Las Vegas                 2005         $72
Hartford           2000    $436          Broward                   1999         $46
St. Louis          1995    $432          Note: The number of Jewish households is the
Rhode Island       2002    $430          number of households in the year of the study,
                                         while the campaign information is generally
Miami              2004    $427          for 2005 (Bergen is 2002 and San Antonio is
Bergen             2001    $365          2006). To the extent that the number of Jewish
                                         households in a community has changed since
Palm Springs       1998    $362          the year of the study, the Average Donation
West Palm Beach    2005    $341          per Household column may overestimate or
                                         underestimate the per household donations in
Jacksonville       2002    $325          2005.
Sarasota           2001    $290
Seattle            2000    $276




                                   108
        Philanthropic Profile–Other Donations
               of Jewish                San Antonio                             (including Jewish
I n total, 69% in the pasthouseholds in69% is about donated to Jewish charitiescomparison Jewish
  Federations)             year. The                average among about 40
communities and compares to 66% in St. Paul, 64% in Tidewater, 59% in Jacksonville, and 56% in
Tucson. The 69% compares to 49% nationally.

Households Who Donated to Other Jewish Charities
| The 55% who donated to other Jewish charities in the past year is about average among about 3035
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 53% in St. Paul, 52% in Tidewater, and 47% in both
Jacksonville and Tucson. The 55% compares to 40% nationally.

Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Other Jewish Charities and Jewish Federations
| The 16% who donated to other Jewish charities only in the past year is about average among about 30
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 19% in Tucson, 17% in Jacksonville, 15% in St. Paul,
and 14% in Tidewater. The 16% compares to 22% nationally.

| The 40% who donated to both Jewish Federations and other Jewish charities in the past year is about
average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 39% in both St. Paul and
Tidewater, 31% in Jacksonville, and 29% in Tucson. The 40% compares to 20% nationally.

Households Who Donated to Non-Jewish Charities
| The 82% who donated to non-Jewish charities in the past year is about average among about 45
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 83% in Tidewater, 79% in both St. Paul and Tucson,
and 76% in Jacksonville. The 82% compares to 63% nationally.

Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Non-Jewish Charities and Jewish Charities
| The 22% who donated to non-Jewish charities only in the past year is about average among about 40
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 29% in Tucson, 24% in both St. Paul and Tidewater,
and 23% in Jacksonville. The 22% compares to 24% nationally.

| The 9% who donated to Jewish charities only in the past year is about average among about 40
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 11% in St. Paul and 6% in each of Tucson, Tidewater,
and Jacksonville. The 9% compares to 10% nationally.

| The 60% who donated to both Jewish and non-Jewish charities in the past year is about average among
about 40 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 60% in Tidewater, 56% in St. Paul, 54% in
Jacksonville, and 51% in Tucson. The 60% compares to 40% nationally.




                                             109
Philanthropic Profile–Other Donations




     Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Other Jewish
     Charities and Jewish Federations in the Past Year




     Overlap Between Households Who Donated to Non-Jewish
     Charities and Jewish Charities in the Past Year


                           110
        Philanthropic Profile–Other Donations
Households Who Donated to Any Charity
| The 91% who donated to any charity in the past year is about average among about 40 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 91% in St. Paul, 89% in Tidewater, 86% in Tucson, and 82% in
Jacksonville. The 91% compares to 73% nationally.




Donated to Charities in the Past Year by Age of Head of Household




                                           111
            Philanthropic Profile–Market Share
    all charitable dollars donated by                        Antonio in         year, 28%
O donated to JFSA. The 28% is aboutJewish households in San comparison the pastcommunitieswere
  f                                   average among about 30            Jewish             and
compares to 32% in both Tidewater and Jacksonville, 25% in St. Paul, and 16% in Tucson.

| The 32% of all charitable dollars donated by households to other Jewish charities in the past year is
about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 35% in St. Paul, 31%
in both Jacksonville and Tucson, and 25% in Tidewater. The 32% compares to 43% nationally.

| The 40% of all charitable dollars donated by households to non-Jewish charities in the past year is
about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 45% in Tucson, 43%
in Tidewater, 39% in St. Paul, and 37% in Jacksonville. The 40% compares to 38% nationally.

| The 60% of all charitable dollars donated by households to Jewish charities (including JFSA)in the past
year is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 63% in
Jacksonville, 61% in St. Paul, 57% in Tidewater, and 55% in Tucson. The 60% compares to 62%
nationally.

| Of all charitable dollars donated by households to Jewish charities in the past year, 47% were donated
to JFSA; 0%, to other Jewish Federations; and 53%, to other Jewish charities. The 47% of Jewish
charitable dollars donated to the local Jewish Federation is above average among about 30 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 57% in Tidewater, 50% in Jacksonville, 41% in St. Paul, and 29%
in Tucson.




                    Distribution of Charitable Dollars in the Past Year


                                               112
                     Philanthropic Profile–Wills
      espondents age 50 and over in Jewish households in San Antonio were asked whether they have
R     wills and, if so, whether the wills contain any charitable provisions. The 14% who have wills that
contain provisions for Jewish charities is about average among about 30 comparison Jewish communities
and compares to 13% in both St. Paul and Tucson, 9% in Jacksonville, and 8% in Tidewater. The 14%
compares to 11% nationally. (The 3% of respondents age 50 and over who have wills that contain
provisions for both Jewish and non-Jewish charities are reported as having wills that contain provisions
for Jewish charities.)

| 27% of respondents age 50 and over who are very familiar with the Jewish Federation have wills that
contain provisions for Jewish charities.

| 25% of respondents age 50 and over in households earning an annual income of $200,000 and over
have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities.

| Among respondents age 50 and over, 16% of Conservative Jews, 18% of Reform Jews, and 6% of the
Just Jewish have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities.

| 20% of respondents age 50 and over in synagogue member households and 25% of respondents age
50 and over in JCC member households have wills that contain provisions for Jewish charities.

| 5% of respondents age 50 and over in households who did not donate and 7% of respondents age 50
and over in households who donated under $100 to the Jewish Federation in the past year have wills that
contain provisions for Jewish charities, compared to 20% of respondents age 50 and over in households
who donated $100-$500 and 36% of respondents age 50 and over in households who donated $500 and
over.

| 56% of respondents age 50 and over know that
the Jewish Federation of San Antonio has a
department that helps with estate planning and
planned giving.




                                                   Have Wills That Contain Charitable Provisions
                                                   (Respondents Age 50 and Over)


                                               113
            Philanthropic Profile–Volunteerism
                                                                done any “volunteer work for, or
J ewish respondents in San Antonio were asked whether they had organization” in the past year and
  sponsored by, a synagogue, Jewish Federation, or other Jewish
whether they had done any “volunteer work for, or sponsored by, any organization that is not specifically
Jewish” in the past year. In total, 59% of respondents volunteered for some organization (either Jewish
or non-Jewish) in the past year.

| The 33% who volunteered for Jewish organizations in the past year is about average among about 20
comparison Jewish communities and compares to 33% in St. Paul, 28% in Jacksonville, and 27% in
Tucson. The 33% compares to 23% nationally.

| The 46% who volunteered for non-Jewish organizations in the past year is about average among about
20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 47% in Tucson, 45% in St. Paul, and 44% in
Jacksonville. The 46% compares to 34% nationally.




             Volunteered for Jewish and Non-Jewish Organizations in the Past Year
             (Jewish Respondents)




                                               114
           Philanthropic Profile–Volunteerism




Volunteered for Jewish and Non-Jewish Organizations in the Past Year by Age of Respondent
(Jewish Respondents)




                                          115
                 Philanthropic Profile–Attitudes
      espondents in Jewish households in San Antonio who donated $100 and over to either the Jewish
R     Federation of San Antonio, other Jewish Federations, or other Jewish charities (Jewish charities
other than Jewish Federations) in the past year were asked whether each of several motivations is very
important, somewhat important, or not at all important in their decisions to donate to a Jewish
organization.
| All of the motivations are at least somewhat important to the vast majority of respondents.
| Compared to about 15-20 comparison Jewish communities, the percentage of respondents who consider
combating anti-Semitism to be a very important motivation is below average. The percentages of
respondents who consider the other seven motivations to be very important are all about average
| In most Jewish communities, including San Antonio, providing social services for the Jewish elderly,
combating anti-Semitism, providing Jewish education for children, and supporting the people of Israel are
considered to be very important motivations by a large majority of respondents, while helping Jews
overseas who are in distress, providing individual and family counseling for Jews, providing social,
recreational, and cultural activities for Jews, and supporting educational trips to Israel are considered to
be less important motivations.




              Percentage Who Consider Each Motivation to Donate to a Jewish
              Organization to Be “Very Important” (Respondents in Households Who
              Donated $100 and Over to Jewish Charities in the Past Year)


                                                 116
                Philanthropic Profile–Attitudes
     espondents in Jewish households in San Antonio who donated $100 and over to the Jewish
R    Federation of San Antonio (JFSA) in the past year were asked whether each of several motivations
would cause them to donate more to JFSA.

| 35% of respondents would donate more to JFSA if more of the money went to local needs, while 16%
of respondents would donate more if more of the money went to needs in Israel and overseas.

| The 35% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if more of the money went to local
needs is about average among about 15 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 58% in
Tidewater, 40% in St. Paul, 39% in Tucson, and 36% in Jacksonville.

| The 25% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if they had more say over how the
money was spent is about average among about 15 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 31%
in Tidewater, 28% in both Jacksonville and Tucson, and 27% in St. Paul.

| The 22% who would donate more to the local Jewish Federation if they were asked by a close friend
is about average among about 20 comparison Jewish communities and compares to 32% in Tucson, 24%
in both Jacksonville and Tidewater, and 20% in St. Paul.

| The 16% who would donate more to the
local Jewish Federation if more of the
money went to needs in Israel and
overseas is about average among about 15
comparison Jewish communities and
compares to 19% in Jacksonville, 12% in
both St. Paul and Tidewater, and 9% in
Tucson.

| The 13% who would donate more to the
local Jewish Federation if they were asked
in person is about average among six
comparison Jewish communities.

| The 3% who would donate more to the
local Jewish Federation if they received
more recognition for their donation is
about average among about 15 comparison
Jewish communities and compares to 4%
in Tidewater, 2% in Tucson, 1% in Percentage Who Reported That Each Motivation Would
Jacksonville, and 0% in St. Paul.        Cause Them to Donate More to JFSA
                                             (Respondents in Households Who Donated $100 and Over to
                                             JFSA in the Past Year)




                                               117
                                   Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Mark Freedman, Executive Director of the Jewish
Federation of San Antonio. Mark is one of the best and most efficient Federation staff persons that I have
worked with over the course of many Jewish community studies that I have completed. Mark effectively
executed everything that needed to happen to assure a quality project. He is truly dedicated to the San
Antonio Jewish community.

The Demographic Study Planning and Advisory Committee, chaired by Cathy Siegel Heins, contributed
significantly to the quality of the project, making suggestions that resulted in new questions and
improvements to existing questions. This is the 40th Demographic Study Committee that I have worked
with around the country, and while each Committee makes significant contributions to their community’s
study, this Committee was particularly strong and deserves special recognition.

Thanks are due to my staff, including Sarah Markowitz, Roberta Pakowitz, and Karen Tina Sheskin, for
their significant assistance.

We would especially like to thank our 675 respondents for donating their time to this effort.


L’dor V’dor
From Generation to Generation
Ira M. Sheskin, Ph.D.

November 2007                                                                                Kislev 5768




                                                118

								
To top