Figure 95: Screener Questions 100
Sampling Design The survey employed three different types <strong>of</strong> sample, each with <strong>the</strong>ir own sampling method: random-digit-dial (RDD) landline sample (n=620 completed interviews), listed cell phone sample (n=100 completed interviews), and listed landline phone sample (n=100 completed interviews). 1) RDD Landline Sample: The representative landline sample employed an RDD procedure, <strong>the</strong> gold standard in survey methodology, to obtain access to a representative sample <strong>of</strong> listed and unlisted landline telephone numbers. The sample was ordered separately by <strong>the</strong> initial regional definitions. The sample was pulled in replicates, a method for structuring sample that allows for more a representative sample pull across a diverse population, initially using Type A, a broader sample pull that accounts for <strong>the</strong> increasing size <strong>of</strong> sample exchanges. This method is better at reaching a wider population area, but can lead to more disconnects and non-working phone numbers. This type <strong>of</strong> replicate proved to be inefficient, so we switched to Type B, a narrower sample pull that <strong>of</strong>ten results in a greater number <strong>of</strong> working phone numbers, after <strong>the</strong> initial sample pull in order to better target productive telephone exchanges. Productivity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample increased markedly. Due to <strong>the</strong> way California assigns telephone numbers and exchanges, nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> switch from Type A to Type B nor <strong>the</strong> targeting <strong>of</strong> productive exchanges should impact our ability to make accurate population estimates. The RDD portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey also employed an adaptive sampling procedure. We compiled rough estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> population by county from a variety <strong>of</strong> sources, including previous demographic studies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>East</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> population, and used <strong>the</strong>se estimates to formulate an initial target number <strong>of</strong> completes for each region and to pull <strong>the</strong> Type A sample. As we began to collect data, we used <strong>the</strong> incoming data to re-calculate <strong>the</strong> incidence information and formulate a more accurate number <strong>of</strong> completes. In all, we recalculated regional targets and revised our incidence estimates four times during <strong>the</strong> fielding period to achieve <strong>the</strong> most productive and efficient sampling plan possible. Finally, we modified <strong>the</strong> sampling plan to slightly oversample regions with smaller <strong>Jewish</strong> populations, in particular, Napa and Solano counties. Had we sampled <strong>the</strong>se counties in a purely representative way, we would have had too few interviews in <strong>the</strong>se counties and been unable to conduct a separate regional analysis. We oversampled <strong>the</strong>se counties just enough to obtain enough interviews to formulate population estimates in Napa and Solano without impacting <strong>the</strong> overall representativeness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample as a whole. Following <strong>the</strong> survey, <strong>the</strong> data were weighted so that <strong>the</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> population from each region reflected to <strong>the</strong> expected, representative proportions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> population by each region and county. Thus <strong>the</strong> final sampling plan sought to balance <strong>the</strong> need to obtain enough interviews in Napa and Solano counties with our need to truly representative data for analysis. The response rate for this portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample was 2.4 percent overall (AAPOR response rate 4), meaning that 2.4 percent <strong>of</strong> numbers dialed completed <strong>the</strong> entire screening portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey. Approximately 6 percent <strong>of</strong> households reached using <strong>the</strong> RDD were <strong>Jewish</strong> households, using <strong>the</strong> definition outlined above. 2) Listed Cell Phone Sample. Phone numbers for <strong>the</strong> cell phone sample were obtained from a consumer list supplied by Info USA Corp, a reputable sample vendor. The total list contained 8,635 records for <strong>the</strong> greater <strong>East</strong> <strong>Bay</strong> region that had been deemed likely to be <strong>Jewish</strong> by <strong>the</strong> vendor. This determination is made using consumer data, such as product purchases and subscriptions, as well as membership lists, surname lists, and o<strong>the</strong>r sources. As a result, listed cell phone sample tends to over-represent older Jews, more affiliated <strong>Jewish</strong> families, and those with traditionally <strong>Jewish</strong> surnames. However, it provided <strong>the</strong> only feasible, cost-effective 101
- Page 3 and 4:
East Bay Jewish Community Study Pla
- Page 5:
The Jewish Federation of the East B
- Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary The Jewish Commun
- Page 11 and 12:
• A plurality (33 percent) identi
- Page 13:
• Most parents who want to give t
- Page 16 and 17:
Among the smaller geographic areas
- Page 18 and 19:
Additional Estimates In addition to
- Page 21 and 22:
Demographic Characteristics of the
- Page 23 and 24:
The average household size in the E
- Page 25 and 26:
Figure 14: Income by Region Last ye
- Page 27 and 28:
Geography and Mobility A plurality
- Page 29 and 30:
Residents of the Oakland-Berkeley C
- Page 31:
Most residents, even those under ag
- Page 34 and 35:
Jewish Identification As a starting
- Page 36 and 37:
Overall, a plurality of East Bay Je
- Page 38 and 39:
Demographically, intermarried Jewis
- Page 40 and 41:
Jewish Identity There is a strong s
- Page 42 and 43:
Having a Jewish family is not the h
- Page 44 and 45:
Similarly, the practices of the int
- Page 46 and 47:
General Involvement More than 40 pe
- Page 48 and 49:
Synagogue and Organizational Member
- Page 50 and 51:
Synagogue membership is higher amon
- Page 52 and 53:
The highest level of synagogue memb
- Page 54 and 55:
Residents who belong to a Jewish or
- Page 56 and 57:
Informal Participation in Jewish Li
- Page 58 and 59: Regionally, volunteers are distribu
- Page 60 and 61: Those residents most likely to atte
- Page 62 and 63: Spiritual event attendees are more
- Page 65 and 66: Tzedakah in the Jewish Community A
- Page 67 and 68: Financially, donors to Israel and n
- Page 69 and 70: Geographically, Jewish Federation o
- Page 71 and 72: Feelings about the Jewish Community
- Page 73 and 74: A majority (54 percent) of intermar
- Page 75: The most negative views held about
- Page 78 and 79: Family Size Just over one-quarter o
- Page 80 and 81: Although 42 percent of younger Jews
- Page 82 and 83: Overall, a majority of Jewish paren
- Page 84 and 85: Figure 72: Overall Contribution to
- Page 86 and 87: This group already participates in
- Page 88 and 89: The biggest barriers for those who
- Page 90 and 91: Forty-one percent of younger Jews g
- Page 92 and 93: Older and younger Jews also use a d
- Page 94 and 95: “Jew-ish” in the East Bay Anoth
- Page 96 and 97: Almost 90 percent think that helpin
- Page 98 and 99: Although financially the ―Jew-ish
- Page 100 and 101: More than half of the unaffiliated
- Page 102 and 103: Unaffiliated Jews do not purport to
- Page 104 and 105: Research Definitions A Jewish adult
- Page 106 and 107: Figure 93: Redefined Regional Defin
- Page 110 and 111: method for introducing cell phone s
- Page 112 and 113: Total RDD Listed Landline Listed Ce
- Page 114 and 115: In general, the Jewish population s
- Page 116 and 117: Figure 99: Breakoff Chart Age and G
- Page 118 and 119: Figure 101: Sampling Error by Perce
- Page 120 and 121: Appendix B: Demographic Study Frequ
- Page 122 and 123: Q.19 I am going to read you a list
- Page 124 and 125: Not Very/ Nt Too/ Impt Very Smwt To
- Page 126 and 127: Q.51 Are you legally married, in a
- Page 128 and 129: Q.57 (IF SINGLE, PARTNER BUT NOT LI
- Page 130 and 131: Strng Smwt Smwt Strng DK/ Total Tot
- Page 132 and 133: Q.82 How long have you lived in the
- Page 134 and 135: Q.92 Which of the following orienta
- Page 136: Q.9 How many landlines do you have