BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report.081020

Building Resilient Jewish Communities: A Jewish Response to the Coronavirus Crisis Building Resilient Jewish Communities: Pittsburgh Key Findings August 10, 2020 Janet Aronson Matthew Boxer Matthew A. Brookner Raquel Magidin de Kramer Leonard Saxe

© 2020 Brandeis University Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies www.brandeis.edu/cmjs BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report

Acknowledgments Thank you to the BRJC project management team for leading the extraordinary effort to bring this project to fruition. Matthew Feinberg served as project manager, coordinated staff and schedule, and was responsible for sample development. Shahar Hecht developed and oversaw the survey instrument and data collection. Nicole Samuel managed relationships and communication with participating communities. Our study team included Harry Aaronson and Rebecca Rose who programmed and tested the survey instrument and communicated with respondents. Eliana Chapman and Daniel Mangoubi worked on data cleaning, analysis, and reporting. Harry Aaronson, Rebecca Rose, and Harry Abrahams coded and de-identified qualitative responses. Harry Abrahams, Camille Evans, Jay Joshi, Maddie Herrup, Samyak Nahar, and Ilana Friedman aided with response enhancement efforts. A number of additional colleagues and students at CMJS assisted with the project. We are deeply appreciative of their efforts. In particular, Graham Wright and Charles Kadushin provided technical advice throughout the research process. Deborah Grant gave editorial advice and feedback. Masha Lokshin and Ilana Friedman provided logistical support throughout the study. Over 15,000 respondents across 10 communities gave of their time to complete this survey. Without their willingness to answer numerous questions about their experiences in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, there could be no study. CMJS is grateful to the following partners and funders for the opportunity to conduct the 2020 Building Resilient Jewish Communities Study: The Associated: Jewish Federation of Baltimore Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles Jewish Federation of Greater MetroWest NJ Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh Jewish Federation of Greater Washington Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County Jewish Federation of St. Louis Jewish United Fund of Chicago/JUF Berman Jewish DataBank @ The Jewish Federations of North America Combined Jewish Philanthropies Donor Advised Fund Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University (CMJS) Initiative for Jewish Identity at Brandeis University BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report

Building Resilient Jewish Communities: Pittsburgh Key Findings Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected members of Jewish communities around the world. In addition to the health effects of the pandemic experienced by many, nearly everyone has felt significant disruption to their personal, social, and economic lives. The pandemic is, thus, a crisis for the community as well as for individuals and families. For the Jewish community, whose core values promote a sense of responsibility for one another, COVID presents a challenge to adapt and respond to changing needs. How the Jewish community responds will depend on understanding the specific ways in which the crisis has affected its members. This report, based on a survey of Pittsburgh Jewish adults in June 2020, identifies some of the ways the community has been affected by COVID and aims to facilitate communal planning during and beyond the COVID crisis. The results of this study allow us to compare various populations, for example, those with different pre-crisis levels of economic security and different levels of engagement with Jewish institutions. Because our respondents are drawn from an incomplete sample of the Pittsburgh Jewish community (e.g., our sample includes a larger proportion of synagogue members and Federation donors), the study’s strength is in highlighting the differences between groups and the ways in which these sub- groups of the population have coped and/or been challenged by the crisis. One should be cautious in using the point estimates of any particular finding. This report focuses on the impact of the crisis on the financial well-being and emotional health of respondents, and the roles Jewish institutions have played during the crisis. These findings are a subset of those drawn from a relatively long survey. We emphasize those that have direct implications for short- and medium-term planning by the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh and other communal organizations. The key findings presented in this report respond to the research questions that drove this study: How were members of the Jewish community affected by the pandemic, and who was most affected? How did Jewish organizations respond to the crisis? How did Judaism and online Jewish life help members of the Jewish community cope emotionally with pandemic challenges? In addition to the findings in this report, detailed responses to survey questions broken down by demographic subgroups are available in a separate topline report. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 1

Summary Financial Well-being  People in more difficult financial situations prior to the crisis were more likely to have their financial situation worsen because of the pandemic.  Although the vast majority of respondents reported that they had at least “enough” money, older adults tended to be significantly better off financially than younger adults.  Regardless of their financial situation, household structure, and employment status, younger people were more likely to be concerned about their immediate needs than were older people. Coping and Emotional Health  Younger adults (ages 18-34) had more trouble coping with the psychological effects of the pandemic, despite having similar or greater social support, than older adults.  Respondents whose financial situations were worse prior to the pandemic had a harder time coping and tended to have less support than more affluent respondents.  Younger adults and those in worse financial situations had worse psychological outcomes, with the worst outcomes for respondents who were ages 18-34 and lacked sufficient financial resources prior to the pandemic.  Regardless of financial status, young adults were substantially more likely to say they needed mental health services than older adults. Difficult financial circumstances substantially increased the probability that a young adult would need mental health services.  Those whose work hours increased and those whose jobs were most difficult to do from home experienced the most job stress. Relationships with Jewish Organizations  Federation donors and others who were Jewishly engaged prior to the pandemic were more likely to be contacted by Federation and by other Jewish organizations during the crisis compared to those who were less engaged.  Regardless of level of engagement, younger people were more likely than older people to receive offers of assistance, invitations to programs and invitations to volunteer; older people were more likely to receive solicitations than younger people were.  Synagogue members who were more religiously involved prior to the crisis, and those who were contacted by their congregations during the crisis, rated the synagogue performance higher.  Most respondents expected to increase (16%) or maintain (57%) the amount they give to Jewish causes. Those who were financially well-off prior to the crisis were likely to increase or maintain their levels of Jewish giving.  Donors who were well-off and received a solicitation from a Jewish organization, and those who rated the federation’s COVID response as “excellent,” were more likely to indicate they will increase their Jewish giving.  Interest in Jewish causes decreased slightly for nearly everyone, regardless of past organizational involvement or Jewish donating behavior. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 2

Online Jewish Life  Online Jewish life had the greatest appeal for those who were engaged in Jewish life prior to the pandemic and was critical in maintaining Jewish connections in the absence of in-person activities.  Outreach from Jewish organizations was a motivating factor to participate in online Jewish programs and activities for those who were already engaged in Jewish life. Among Jewish adults who were highly engaged in Jewish life, those who had been in contact with a local Jewish organization were more likely to participate in online services, programs, and social media. For Jewish adults who were less engaged in Jewish life, contact from a Jewish organization made less of a difference.  Online Judaism was more effective at connecting people to programs and resources than to other people but did help participants maintain their connections to the Jewish world. Methodological Notes  This report is based on data from 1,453 respondents collected between May 21 and June 12, 2020. Respondents are representative of Jewish adults known to selected organizations and not of the whole community.  Throughout this report, “level of Jewish communal engagement” refers to Jewish engagement prior to the crisis and includes organization member, donor to Jewish charity, program participation, and Jewish volunteering. “Level of Jewish ritual engagement” refers to ritual behavior prior to the crisis and includes religious service attendance, Shabbat observance, and seder participation.  Study results appear either as proportions or as predicted probabilities. Each table indicates which type of measure is used.  Proportions of single variables or in crosstabs show weighted proportions of respondents who responded to survey questions.  Predicted probabilities are weighted estimates of the likelihood of a particular response given specific values of other variables, as estimated using a statistical model. When predicted probabilities are reported, they should be understood as the likelihood of a particular response given a set of conditions (such as age and financial status), rather than the actual responses of survey respondents. When we estimate predicted probabilities, we control for values of other variables that are not shown in the table. The full models with all control variables appear in the Appendix.  We present predicted probabilities for selected scenarios that are intended to illustrate key findings. Not all combinations of variables are shown.  A brief Methodological Appendix appears at the end of this report. An Appendix showing details of the statistical models is available in a separate document. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 3

Report Findings Financial Well-being People in more difficult financial situations prior to the crisis were more likely to have their financial situation worsen. Not surprisingly, these individuals were most worried about their financial future and most likely to need health or human service assistance. Among all respondents, 31% reported that their financial situation worsened, and about three quarters (74%) were worried about at least some aspect of their financial future (Table 1). Financial worries included affording basic living expenses, affording testing or treatment for COVID-19, maintaining accustomed standard of living, and having enough money for retirement. Among those who did not have enough money prior to the pandemic, financial worries were significantly worse than those who had more resources to begin with. Table 1. Financial situation (proportions) Pre-pandemic Financial Any financial Very worried Somewhat or Needed any financial situation situation worry very worried services worsened 15 about losing 74 47 12 Overall 31 97 21 job 32 Not enough money 42 90 22 10 Enough money 28 76 9 76 A little extra money 29 53 3 69 9 Well-off 31 54 9 38 Although the vast majority of respondents of all ages reported they had at least “enough” money, older adults tended to be significantly better off financially than younger adults (Table 2). Table 2. Pre-pandemic financial situation by age (proportions) Pre-pandemic 18-34 35-49 50-64 65-74 75+ Overall financial situation 8 5 12 Not enough money 20 21 10 28 23 28 19 16 25 Enough money 34 29 26 45 56 36 100 100 100 A little extra money 31 34 27 Well-off 15 16 37 Total 100 100 100 Regardless of their financial situation, household structure, and employment status, younger people were more likely to be concerned about their immediate needs than were older people. Among adults ages 18-34 who did not have enough money, 54% were somewhat or very worried about maintaining their standard of living or affording basic expenses, compared to 27% of adults ages 75 and older with a similar financial status (Table 3). BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 4

Table 3. Future financial worries by financial situation and age (predicted probabilities) Pre-pandemic Age Somewhat or very worried financial situation 18-34 54 Not enough money 35-49 44 or enough money 50-64 42 65-74 34 75 + 27 18-34 26 A little extra money 35-49 19 or well-off 50-64 18 65-74 12 75 + 9 Coping and Emotional Health Consistent with research on Americans’ responses to the pandemic, respondents ages 18-34 had more trouble coping with the psychological effects of the pandemic, despite having similar or greater social support than older adults. Similarly, respondents whose financial situations were worse prior to the pandemic had a harder time coping and tended to have less support than more affluent respondents. Tables 4 and 5 show psychological outcomes, service need, and available support by age and pre- pandemic financial situation, respectively. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 5

Table 4. Psychological outcomes, service need, and support by age (proportions) Not coping well Lonely Emotional difficulties Need any services Need mental health services Need medical care Need help accessing public benefits Adequate support network In contact with others Overall 9 37 28 12 32 2 50 65 Age 18-34 25 57 55 19 15 3 5 63 65 35-49 15 38 42 13 41 4 49 55 50-64 6 34 28 9 21 2 53 62 65-74 7 34 17 10 1 <1 1 45 72 75+ 5 34 19 14 <1 3 <1 44 69 Not coping well: Coping not at all or not too well Lonely: Felt lonely in past week sometimes, often, or all the time Emotional difficulties: Emotional or mental difficulties hurt ability to live day-to-day life in past week sometimes, often, or all the time Adequate support network: Fair number or a lot of people you can rely on In contact with others: In contact with family and friends not living with you sometimes or often in past week Table 5. Psychological outcomes, service need, and support by pre-pandemic financial situation (proportions) Not coping well Lonely Emotional difficulties Need any services Need mental health services Need medical care Need help accessing public benefits Adequate support network In contact with others Overall 9 37 28 12 32 2 50 65 Pre- 22 60 52 32 10 5 11 36 46 pandemic 10 45 37 10 21 2 47 64 financial 25 9 21 1 50 67 situation 9 37 Not enough money Enough money A little extra Well-off 4 25 16 9 32 0 56 70 Not coping well: Coping not at all or not too well Lonely: Felt lonely in past week sometimes, often, or all the time Emotional difficulties: Emotional or mental difficulties hurt ability to live day-to-day life in past week sometimes, often, or all the time Adequate support network: Fair number or a lot of people you can rely on In contact with others: In contact with family and friends not living with you sometimes or often in past week BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 6

Younger adults and those individuals with more difficult financial situations tended to have worse psychological outcomes, with the worst outcomes for respondents who were ages 18- 34 and lacked sufficient financial resources prior to the pandemic. Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the outcomes for age and financial status. Table 6. Psychological outcomes and support by age and financial status (predicted probabilities) Pre- Age Not coping well Lonely Emotional Adequate In contact pandemic difficulties support with others financial network situation Not enough 18-34 20 54 59 59 53 money 75+ 5 45 21 18 44 Well-off 18-34 9 28 39 77 75 75+ 2 21 10 34 67 Not coping well: Coping not at all or not too well Lonely: Felt lonely in past week sometimes, often, or all the time Emotional difficulties: Emotional or mental difficulties hurt ability to live day-to-day life in past week sometimes, often, or all the time Adequate support network: Fair number or a lot of people you can rely on In contact with others: In contact with family and friends not living with you sometimes or often in past week Regardless of financial status, younger adults ages 18-34 were significantly more likely to say they needed mental health services than older adults. However, difficult financial circumstances substantially increased the probability that a young adult would need mental health services. Need for services in general was mostly associated with a person’s financial situation, particularly (and not surprisingly) for those who needed help accessing public benefits. The need for mental health services was primarily associated with age. Table 7. Need for services by age and financial status (predicted probabilities) Pre-pandemic Age Need any Needed mental Need medical Public benefits financial situation services health services care 12 2 Not enough money 18-34 19 40 3 1 75+ 16 <1 3 <1 Well-off 18-34 9 11 1 75+ 7 <1 1 Job Stress Among those who were working at the time of the survey, 63% reported feeling more stress in their work, 24% reported that their stress level had not changed much, and 12% reported less stress in their job, compared to the time before the crisis (Table 8). BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 7

Table 8. Job stress and challenges (proportions) % New feelings of stress at work 12 Less stress 24 Hasn’t changed much 63 More stress Total work hours increased 9 Yes 91 No Difficulty of working from home 35 Relatively easy 33 Can be done with some challenges 18 Difficult, but possible 13 Impossible Not sure 1 People whose work hours increased, and those whose jobs were most difficult to do from home, experienced the most job stress. While only 9% of those employed reported increased hours, 90% reported experiencing more stress. Comparatively, 61% of people whose hours stayed the same felt more stressed by their jobs. Similarly, people whose jobs were “relatively easy” to do from home felt less stress than others, regardless of whether or not they started working from home due to the pandemic. Regardless of changes to respondents’ work hours and job settings, work stress increased for the majority of respondents. For those whose work hours increased, an increase in job stress was reported by the vast majority of respondents. Increase in job stress was near universal among those who encountered increase in work hours and whose jobs are impossible to do from home (96%) (Table 9). Among those whose work hours stayed the same, those whose work is impossible to do from home reported a substantially larger increase in job stress (75%) compared to those whose job is relatively easy to do from home (54%). Table 9. Job stress by increase in work hours and ease of working from home (predicted probabilities) Change in hours Ease of work from home More job stress Hours increased Relatively easy 89 Impossible 96 Hours same Relatively easy 54 Impossible 75 People who described their jobs as “careers” experienced more stress than those who considered their jobs as “just a way to get by.” Eighty-five percent of workers described their jobs as a career; among them, 66% felt more job stress, compared to 47% of people whose jobs were not careers. Younger people, people who were married, people whose financial situation was worse before the pandemic or whose situation became worse during the pandemic, all were more likely to report increased stress. After accounting for the change in work hours and work at home status, “essential workers” did not feel greater stress than other workers. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 8

Relationships with Jewish Organizations Jewish organizations and synagogues reached out to community members by offering assistance, checking in on how they were doing, inviting them to programs or to volunteer, and asking for donations. In total, 32% of Jewish adults were contacted by both a Jewish organization and by a synagogue, 19% by a synagogue where they were a member, and 27% by a Jewish organization but not by a synagogue (Table 10). Notably, 23% of Jewish adults were not contacted by any Jewish organization at any time since the start of the crisis. Table 10. Contacts with Jewish institutions by type of contact and organization (proportions) % who received this Any type of Offer of Ask how Invite to Invite to Ask for contact from… contact assistance you were program volunteer donation doing 9 3 Synagogue and 32 7 9 17 6 34 Jewish organization 54 100 Synagogue only 19 17 30 16 7 Jewish organization 27 11 9 20 13 only No contact 23 64 52 46 75 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Note: synagogue contact only asked of synagogue members Those respondents who were Jewishly engaged prior to the crisis were contacted more often by Jewish organizations and by Federation. Frequency in participation in programs or activities sponsored by a Jewish organization prior to the crisis was found to be related to frequency of being contacted. In addition, Federation donors were contacted more frequently than were other respondents (Table 11). BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 9

Table 11. Contact with Jewish organizations by donor status and frequency of program attendance prior to the crisis (proportions) Offer of Ask how you Invite to Invite to Ask for assistance were doing program volunteer donations Overall 19 18 37 19 44 2019 donations Did not donate to Jewish 21 10 33 18 33 org. 15 14 36 17 39 Donated to Jewish org., not to Federation Donated to Federation 22 26 41 21 53 Frequency of program attendance Never 11 13 14 5 28 Occasionally 13 12 31 15 37 Monthly 26 24 50 27 53 Weekly 36 39 56 33 66 People who were highly engaged in Jewish communal life prior to the pandemic were more likely to receive all types of contact from Jewish organizations than those with low engagement. Regardless of level of engagement, however, younger people were more likely than older people to receive offers of assistance, invitations to programs and invitations to volunteer (Table 12). Older people were more likely to receive requests for donations than were younger people. Table 12. Contact with Jewish organizations by age and communal engagement (predicted probabilities) Communal Age Offer of Ask how you Invite to Invite to Ask for engagement assistance were doing program volunteer donations before 18-34 45 37 65 42 36 35-49 29 26 53 34 30 High 50-64 26 33 49 24 62 65-74 23 34 45 19 55 75+ 19 33 40 16 51 18-34 24 9 41 27 38 35-49 14 6 30 20 32 Low 50-64 12 8 26 14 28 65-74 10 8 23 10 59 75+ 8 8 20 8 53 Donors to Federation were more aware of the Federation’s response to the crisis compared to non-donors and rated it most favorably (Table 13). People who were contacted by a Jewish organization during the pandemic rated the Federation response higher than those who were not contacted. This finding was true for donors and non-donors. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 10

Table 13. Rating of Federation response to crisis by Jewish donors and contact Was 2019 donations contacted Poor / Just fair Good / Don’t know (ask, assist excellent invite) Did not donate to No 6 21 74 Jewish org. Yes 2 38 61 Donated to Jewish No 7 35 57 2 56 42 org., not to Federation Yes No 8 53 39 Donated to Federation 2 72 26 Yes Synagogues and Congregations During the coronavirus crisis, almost 80% of survey respondents who were members of Jewish congregations were contacted by their congregations (Table 14). Sixty-one percent were personally contacted to ask how they were doing, 39% were offered (or provided) assistance, 53% were invited to participate on online programs, 20% to volunteer and 19% were contacted for donations. Congregants who were more religiously involved in Jewish life, including those who attended services more often, were more likely to receive all types of contacts from their synagogue. Table 14. Contact with synagogues by level of religious engagement (proportion of synagogue members) Offer of Ask how you Invite to Invite to Ask for assistance were doing program volunteer donations Overall 39 61 53 20 19 Religious engagement Low 0 3 3 0 0 Med 31 54 54 13 14 High 48 70 70 30 24 *Note: synagogue members only The majority of synagogue members rated the response of the congregation as positive, including 32% as good and 47% as excellent. Eleven percent of the respondents rated their congregation’s response as just fair or poor, and an additional 10% did not know how to respond to the question. Synagogue members who were more religiously engaged and those who were contacted by their congregations rated the synagogue performance higher than those who were less engaged and those who were never contacted (Table 15). BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 11

Table 15. Rating of synagogues by level of religious engagement and contact (proportion of synagogue members) Poor / Just fair Good Excellent Don't know Religious engagement Med 9 36 40 16 High 13 29 55 4 Contact with synagogue Any contact 8 33 53 6 No contact 23 28 23 26 Respondents who mentioned that they do not expect to renew their synagogue membership (only 5% of total) rated the performance of synagogue less favorably (11% excellent) compared to the respondents who expected to continue their membership (48% excellent). Charitable Support for Jewish Organizations Most respondents expected to increase (16%) or maintain (57%) the amount they give to Jewish causes (Table 16). Among the 78% of respondents who donated to a Jewish cause in 2019, 18% planned to increase their Jewish giving, and 60% intended to keep it the same. Table 16. Plans to change Jewish giving in 2020, by Jewish donations in 2019 (proportions) Increase Maintain Decrease Unsure Overall 16 57 7 20 18 60 9 13 Donated to Jewish 0 47 org. in 2019 8 45 Did not donate to Jewish org. in 2019 Those who were well-off prior to the crisis were likely to increase or maintain their levels of Jewish giving. One quarter of 2019 donors who were well-off intended to increase their Jewish giving, compared to 4% of 2019 donors who did not have enough money (Table 17). The majority (88%) of the well-off donated to a Jewish organization in 2019. Respondents whose financial situations either stayed the same or improved since the start of the pandemic were more likely to increase or maintain their Jewish giving. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 12

Table 17. Jewish donations in 2019 and plans for 2020, by financial situation, among donors (proportions) Pre-pandemic Donated to financial Jewish org. in 2020 Increase 2020 Maintain 2020 Decrease 2020 Unsure situation 2019 Not enough 52 4 52 22 22 money Enough money 77 13 60 10 17 A little extra 79 19 61 6 14 money Well-off 88 25 61 7 7 For most respondents, expected changes to Jewish giving were similar to plans for non-Jewish giving. For example, 49% of those who planned to increase their non-Jewish giving expected to increase their Jewish giving, and 41% planned to maintain their same level of Jewish giving (Table 18). Table 18. Jewish versus non-Jewish giving (proportions) Plan to change Jewish giving in 2020 Plans to change Increase Maintain Decrease Unsure non-Jewish giving 8 Increase 49 41 2 4 6 Maintain 11 83 1 84 Decrease 4 32 58 Unsure 39 4 Donors who were well-off were more likely to increase their Jewish giving if they received a request for donations from a Jewish organization, and if they rated the Federation’s COVID response as “excellent.” For those who were well-off and were contacted, 36% planned to increase their Jewish giving if they rated the COVID response highly, but 24% planned to increase if they did not rate it highly (Table 19). Among the well-off who were not contacted, 26% planned to increase their Jewish giving if they rated the COVID response highly, compared to 17% who did not rate it highly. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 13

Table 19. Plans to increase or maintain Jewish giving by solicitation and Federation rating (predicted probabilities) Received solicitation Rating of federation COVID Increase Jewish Maintain Jewish from Jewish org. or response giving giving synagogue Yes Excellent 36 59 Not excellent or don’t know 24 69 No Excellent 26 67 Not excellent or don’t know 17 74 *All well-off financial situation Issues of Interest The survey asked respondents for up to three causes they care most about, both before the coronavirus crisis and during the pandemic. Interest in causes related to social justice, human service needs, politics, and health care and research increased slightly during the pandemic (Table 20). There were slight decreases in interest about the environment and climate change, arts and culture, Jewish life, and Israel. There was no change in interest about antisemitism. Table 20. Interest in selected causes before and during coronavirus (proportions) Top cause Top cause Change before now Social justice 45 50 +5 Human service needs 44 48 +4 Politics 38 41 +3 Health care & research 25 33 +8 Environment & climate change 32 27 -5 Arts & culture 20 15 -5 Any Jewish cause 52 49 -3 Antisemitism 29 29 0 Jewish life 26 23 -3 Israel 19 17 -2 Interest in Jewish causes decreased slightly for nearly everyone, regardless of past organizational involvement or Jewish donating behavior (Table 21). Jewish adults who were highly involved in communal activities and donated to Federation in the past had the highest interest in Jewish causes, but this interest still declined by five percentage points during the pandemic. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 14

Table 21. Interest in Jewish causes among donors before and during coronavirus (predicted probabilities) Jewish org Federation donor in 2019 Jewish cause Jewish cause Change involvement before now Low No 36 37 +1 Yes 44 42 -2 Medium No 51 49 -2 Yes 58 55 -3 High No 65 62 -3 Yes 72 67 -5 There were few differences by age or financial situation for interest in Jewish causes. Parents of minor children expressed more interest in Jewish causes than did parents of older children and non-parents. Younger Jews cared more about social justice and less about politics than older Jews. Those who donated to Federation in 2019 cared more about causes related to Jewish life (34%) and Israel (22%) than those who did not, and less about social justice (42%), and the environment and climate change (22%) (Table 22). Table 22. Interest in selected causes by 2019 donor status (proportions) Cause Did not donate to Donated to Jewish Donated to Federation Jewish org. org., not to Federation 42 Social justice 67 52 51 Human service needs 50 44 40 Politics 39 45 31 Health care & research 37 33 22 Environment & climate change 34 30 14 Arts & culture 19 14 62 Any Jewish cause 23 49 33 18 30 34 Antisemitism 21 22 Jewish life 4 14 Israel 8 BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 15

Online Jewish Life Nearly four-in-five Jewish adults participated in some form of online Jewish life in the past month including online religious services, Jewish programs, Jewish information, and Jewish social media, and/or attended a virtual Passover seder. Thirty-two percent of Jewish adults participated regularly in many forms of online Jewish life, and another 7% reported doing all of these activities frequently (Table 23). Throughout this report, those in the high and maximum category of online participation are referred to as “high” users. Online Jewish life had the greatest appeal for those who were engaged in Jewish life prior to the pandemic and served a critical link to maintain Jewish connections in the absence of in- person activities. People who were most engaged in Jewish communal life (organization and synagogue members, program participants, donors, and those immersed in ritual life —attending religious services or celebrating Shabbat at home) participated in all forms of online Jewish life more regularly than those who were less engaged. Table 23. Participation in online Jewish life by prior Jewish engagement (proportions) Low Medium High Max Total Overall 22 39 32 7 100 Communal Involvement Low 43 51 6 0 100 Med 13 50 34 4 100 High 2 20 56 22 100 Ritual Involvement Low 53 39 8 0 100 Med 13 51 33 3 100 High 4 25 50 21 100 Younger adults were more active online compared to older adults with similar levels of Jewish engagement (Table 24). Table 24. Who is involved with online Jewish life (predicted probabilities) Jewish Age Any online High online communal participation participation engagement 18-34 85 16 Low 74 12 50-64 Medium 18-34 94 45 50-64 89 37 18-34 98 76 High 96 69 50-64 Among Jewish adults who were highly engaged in Jewish life, those who had been in contact with a local Jewish organization were more likely to participate in online prayer services, programs, and social media. For Jewish adults who were less engaged in Jewish BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 16

life, contact from a Jewish organization made less of a difference. This fact suggests that lack of participation was more related to a lack of interest than a lack of awareness. Table 25 considers the role that organizations can play in encouraging participation in online Jewish life. The online Jewish activity with broadest appear was the virtual Passover seder. Adults who were younger, married, and parents of minor children were most likely to have an online seder. This fact is not surprising, given that seders are one of the most widely observed Jewish rituals in American Jewish families. Table 25. Frequency of participation in types of online activities by past Jewish engagement and contact (predicted probabilities) Services Programs Social media Information Virtual seder Jewish Contact Any Frequent Any Frequent Any Frequent Any Frequent Attended communal with and ritual any engagement Jewish org. Low No 5 1 11 48 2 20 6 19 Yes 6 1 20 9 18 7 27 10 22 High No 82 64 77 56 54 30 68 44 73 Yes 85 78 87 76 74 59 75 60 77 One notable exception to this pattern is Orthodox Jews who did not participate in online Jewish prayer services because they were not always available to the Orthodox community for reasons of halacha. This fact explains the more rapid reopening of in-person services by Orthodox synagogues. Conservative and Reform Jews were more likely to attend online services than Jews with no denomination. There were few other denominational differences in online Jewish life. Perception of Value “High” users of online Jewish life reported that they valued online platforms in a variety of ways and expected to continue to use them. Those who used online resources less frequently did not find them as valuable. Online Judaism was more effective at connecting people to programs and resources than to other people. Those who were highly engaged in Jewish life prior to the pandemic found all aspects of online Jewish life more valuable than those who were less engaged before the pandemic (Table 26). BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 17

Table 26. Views on online activity by past Jewish engagement and online use (predicted probabilities) Engagement Online use Online helped me feel Expect to use online Will stay connected to connected resources virtual community Somewhat Completely Somewhat Completely Somewhat Completely agree agree agree agree agree agree Medium Low 44 11 45 10 33 6 Medium Medium 41 9 43 9 33 6 Medium High 49 35 52 32 51 19 High Low 50 17 49 13 41 9 High Medium 48 15 48 12 41 9 High High 42 48 49 39 51 28 Regardless of prior Jewish engagement and online use, the greatest value in online life was in access to new programs, followed by new resources (Table 27). Fewer people connected with new people or communities online. Table 27. Exposure to new online activities by past Jewish engagement and online use (predicted probabilities) Engagement Online use New people New community New resources New programs Medium Low 2 2 6 27 Medium Medium 3 2 7 21 Medium High 15 19 27 53 High Low 3 3 9 31 High Medium 4 2 10 24 High High 21 21 36 57 Jewish Connections High participation in online Jewish life clearly helped respondents maintain connections to the Jewish world. Those with high participation were more likely to say that being Jewish helped them cope with the crisis and feel their connection to Judaism increased (Table 28). They also reported stronger feelings of connection to the worldwide, local, and online Jewish communities, and a view that Judaism was part of their daily life. Table 28. Online participation and attitudes about Judaism (predicted probabilities) Being Jewish helps cope with crisis Change in connection to Judaism Online use Somewhat agree Completely agree No change Stronger Low 25 6 80 6 Medium 34 9 81 8 High 46 23 73 24 *All medium communal and ritual engagement Jewish social networks also influenced feelings of connection. Those who reported that half or more of their closest friends were Jewish felt more connected to the worldwide and local Jewish community, but no different in their connection to the online Jewish community (Table 29). This finding suggests that the online community might be particularly important for those with fewer Jewish friends. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 18

Table 29. Connections to the Jewish world Connection to Connection to local Connection to Being Jewish is part Jewish community online Jewish of daily life worldwide Jewish community community Number Online use of close Somewhat Very Somewhat Very Somewhat Very Somewhat Very Jewish much much much much friends Less than 20 7 27 11 41 30 12 35 19 36 19 51 38 22 Low half 35 19 14 4 34 16 Half or 38 29 15 5 39 29 37 39 36 23 39 37 more 33 51 37 24 32 54 Medium Less than 30 13 half 38 32 Half or more Less than 38 30 31 54 High half Half or more BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 19

Appendix: Methodology Data for the BRJC survey of Pittsburgh were collected between May 19 and June 15, 2020. Participants received up to four email invitations for the survey and were invited to take the survey online. The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Respondents were offered two incentive conditions. The majority of respondents who completed the survey were entered into a lottery for their choice of a $100 Amazon.com gift card or a donation to a charity designated by the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. A smaller sample was offered a guaranteed incentive of $10 which they could receive as an Amazon.com gift card or donate to a charity designated by the Federation. The survey instrument was developed for the BRJC project and incorporated slight modifications for each community. Survey Sample Federation and community organization lists were collected and deduplicated based on email addresses. The resulting frame was stratified based on the source and characteristics of the lists. After households were deduplicated, out-of-area addresses and non-valid email addresses were dropped. The resulting frame included 26,607 contacts. From the full frame, a stratified random sample of 1,996 respondents was drawn into the guaranteed incentive condition. The remainder were assigned to the lottery condition. Overall, 1,293 individuals screened into the survey and 277 individuals screened out of the survey. Respondents screened in if they considered themselves Jewish and lived in the designated geographic area. The total response rate was 6.2% (AAPOR 4), and the cooperation rate was 41.4% (AAPOR 1). Table A1. Outcome rates (AAPOR) Total Incentive Lottery 26.607 1,996 24,611 Frame 26.607 1,996 24,611 Sample 135 Screened In 1,293 32 1,158 Screened Out 277 8.5% 245 Response Rate 4 6.2% 4.6% 6.0% Refusal Rate 2 8.2% 64.7% 8.5% Cooperation Rate 1 13.1% Contact Rate 2 41.4% 39.7% 14.4% 14.5% After completion of data collection, responses were weighted by strata so that the characteristics of the respondent sample would more closely approximate the original list characteristics. The two incentive conditions were tested for nonresponse bias. While there were no substantive differences by financial situations, demographic characteristics, or experiences of COVID-19, respondents in the lottery condition were more involved with Jewish community life than respondents in the universal incentive condition. BRJC Pittsburgh Key Findings Report 20