The Evaluation of Limmud NY 2009

1. The Evaluation of Limmud NY 2009

2. Methodology

3. Evaluation Methodology • Site visit to Limmud NY 2009 conference • On-line survey to all 2009 Limmud NY participants during April 2009 (3 months after conference) • Shorter version of on-line survey to all previous Limmud NY participants (also in April 2009). • 2 follow-up survey mailings to non-respondents

4. Response Rates

5. Response Rates • 41% of Limmud ’09 participants who received the survey responded (N=281) • Compared to all 2009 registrants, the survey sample was more likely to comprise • female participants • ‘returning’ participants, • more observant (e.g. Orthodox, Conservative and Conservadox) participants • An additional 93 people who had attended prior Limmud conferences, but not the 2009 conference, responded to a shorter version of the survey. (These respondents comprised a very small proportion of prior (only) Limmud participants.

6. Results

7. Results • Participation Patterns • Demographics • Jewish Demographics • Motivations for Participating in Limmud • Satisfaction with Limmud • Volunteering • Community • Self-Reported Impact • Plans to Attend Limmud 2010

8. Participation Patterns

9. Limmud Status: Newcomers vs. Returnees, 2008 - 2009

10. Return Participants by Year of Participation

11. Total # of Limmud Conferences Attended by 2009 Participants

12. Demographics

13. Differences Between Limmud 2009 Participants’ Demographics & Survey Data • Females are over-represented in survey sample (68% in survey vs. 59% registered) • Fewer Orthodox survey respondents (20% registered, 14% responded to survey) and more Conservative survey respondents (32% registered, 44% responded to survey). • Similar discrepancies between registrants and survey respondents found in 2008 • 9% decrease in 2009 in proportion of 35-49 year olds and some increases in the 50+ categories. • Because of the decrease in participants ages 35-49, there was a corresponding decrease in the proportion of participants who have children • No differences in geographic distributions

14. Limmud NY 2008 - 2009 Participants by Geographic Areas

15. Limmud Participants by Age, 2008-9 Mean Overall Age=39 Median Overall Age=37

16. Participants’ Age Distributions, by Gender* There is greater gender parity among the older cohorts *Registration Data

17. Limmud NY 2009 Participants by Gender, Registration Data

18. Participants by Gender: Registration vs. Survey Distributions 2008-2009

19. Limmud NY 2009 Participants, by Marital Status

20. Limmud Attendance by Family Category

21. Participants by Employment Status

22. 2008 2009 Participantsby Number of Children

23. Russian Speaking Limmud NY 2009 Participants • 7% of respondents (n=23) were Russian speaking Jews (RSJ’s) who were born in the FSU or whose parents were born in the FSU. • RSJ’s did not differ significantly from non-RSJ’s in terms of their reactions to the Limmud conference or in their interest in attending the 2010 conference.

24. Participants by Sexual Orientation

25. Proportion of Limmud Participants who Received Scholarships, 2008-9

26. Jewish Characteristics

27. Jewish Connections of Limmud NY 2009 Participants

28. Participants by Denomination, Registration Data: 2008-2009

29. Participants by Denomination: 2005-2009 (Registration Data)

30. Affiliation with Jewish Spiritual Communities among Limmud NY Participants (2005-9)

31. Membership in Synagogue or Minyan by Denomination, Limmud 2009 Participants

32. Extent to which Synagogue/Minyan Members Regard Themselves* as ‘Jewish Leaders’ Synagogue/ minyan members are significantly more likely than non-members to regard themselves as ‘Jewish leaders’ although the overall proportion of Limmud NY 2009 participants who regard themselves as Jewish leaders is very high (67%). *including ‘to some extent’ and ‘to a great extent’

33. Professional Jewish Experiences • 12% currently work as Jewish professionals or Jewish educators • 55% are current or past Jewish professionals or Jewish educators. • 42 % have worked as both Jewish professionals and Jewish educators. • 45% have no history working either as Jewish professionals or as Jewish educators.

34. Professional Jewish Experiences • No differences between Jewish professionals and non-professionals re. their satisfaction with Limmud 2009 conference. • Jewish professionals are slightly more likely to have volunteered in contexts other than Limmud. • Jewish non-professionals are slightly more likely to say that they are definitely attending Limmud 2010 (32% vs. 24%).

35. Limmud NY 2009 Participants who Attended Yeshiva or Day School

36. Jewish Educational Experiences (2005-9)

37. Participants by Early Jewish Education

38. Participants by Jewish Background 2009 2008

39. Participants by Spouses’ Jewish Background 2009 2008

40. Participants by Previous Year’s Dating Patterns

41. Participants’ Jewish Beliefs and Attitudes

42. Participants’ Jewish Beliefs and Attitudes (cont.)

43. Motivations for Attending Limmud

44. Motivations for Attending Limmud: 2009 vs. 2008

45. Relationship between Prior Limmud Attendance & Importance of Community

46. Extent to which Initial Expectations were Met

47. Satisfaction with Limmud NY 2009

48. Satisfaction Ratings by Conference Year, 2006-2009

49. Satisfaction Ratings by Gender: Proportion “Very Satisfied” *significant gender difference in satisfaction ratings

50. Satisfaction Ratings by Denomination: Proportion “Very Satisfied”