Deficient, If Not Distorted: Jewish Community Studies That Totally Rely upon Known Jewish Households

In recent years, responding to new challenges and rising costs, local Jewish community studies have increasingly moved to eliminate a Random Digit Dial (RDD) component or functional equivalent thereof. Using the Jewish Community Study of New York 2011, this paper contrasts RDD respondents with those appearing on the expanded Federation lists (Fedlist) and Distinctive Jewish Name (DJN) respondents. The analysis demonstrates wide differences separating Fedlist from other respondents. Hence, conducting studies of the Jewish population that omit a significant RDD component are quite often deficient and distorted. They ignore and downplay important population groups. The biases are far from random, but systematic and overlapping, as many features of Jewish marginality are underplayed. Without sufficient caveats, such studies can also become deceptive and destructive. They are deceptive in that they feed and reinforce understandable yet misleading stereotypes of the Jewish population. All such studies need to be publicized with huge warning labels prominently displayed on the press releases and report. They are destructive in that they would seduce leadership into feeling self-satisfied in seeing a Jewish population that is relatively well-connected Jewishly and not all that needy socially and economically. Ideally, all Jewish community studies should contain a Random Digit Dialing component so as to allow “unknown” Jews to be known and visible. In the event that such is not the case, researchers should strongly and repeatedly reinforce the message that their results and analyses pertain only to those Jews most connected and most visible to the organized Jewish community.