Rethinking the ‘What works?’ of Jewish identity formation

What educational programmes seem to carry an impact?

If upbringing is the soil, what about the garden of Jewish programmes? After statistically accounting for Jewish background, we went on to examine nine key experiences, including Jewish schooling, youth movement, summer camps, and Israel programmes. Surprisingly, membership of a university Jewish society (JSoc) was the most impactful, but we suspect that by that age, considerable self-selection may muddy statistical waters. Youth movement involvement proved impactful, especially in terms of Jewish friends, Jewish communal engagement and Israel attachment. Jewish schooling was somewhat less impactful, being mainly associated with Jewish friends and communal engagement, and its long-term influence paled in comparison to home rituals. Short-term Israel programmes offered only fleeting gains over time, while cheder attendance and formal Jewish studies qualifications showed minimal lasting impact.

Age layered another dimension onto our findings. When comparing those aged 18–39 to those aged 40–59, home upbringing had greater sway among older adults, while key educational experiences still ‘fresh’ in younger memories—schools, youth movements, camps—held more immediate predictive power. Could it be that we are seeing the impact of these programmes ‘wear off’ over time, while the experiences of the home have a longer-lasting effect? 

Programmes may plant seeds, but in time the deep roots laid at home endure. As experiences fade into memory, they cede influence to the upbringing that has shaped worldviews and habits. Nevertheless, it is important not to overstate this; even siblings raised identically often diverge, reminding us that much of what shapes identity in the long run remains a mystery.

Five things parents and educators need to take into account

What does this all mean for Jewish educators and community planners, or indeed, for Jewish parents? First, recalibrate expectations: no single programme or experience can guarantee a strong Jewish identity. There are simply too many hidden variables—individual temperament, peer networks, random life events—that lie beyond any curriculum’s or parent’s reach.

Second, parents should understand they are the primary Jewish educators and be empowered as such. Home practices are not quaint traditions but foundational experiences with measurable long-term effects. Investing in parental training, support networks and resources to enrich home experiences like Friday night, kashrut, and family rituals may yield deeper dividends than another curriculum overhaul.

Third, continue to cultivate peer-led arenas such as youth movements and JSoc frameworks. While costly school systems and Israel programmes remain impactful, in terms of Jewish identity outcomes, and accounting for upbringing, it is informal peer-led programmes which appear to offer higher ‘value add,’ for relatively low investment.

Fourth, no single experience dramatically shifts long-term Jewish identity trajectories. It is better, therefore, to frame Jewish educational opportunities within a broader ecosystem, rather than as silver bullets.

Finally, embrace the complexity and accept that there are no quick fixes. While the home is key, Jewish identity also grows from the cumulative interplay of the home, teachers, peers, rituals, programmes, community and chance. Rather than isolating single interventions, foster complementary networks such as Jewish schools aligned with youth groups and whole-family education. Approach the ‘what works?’ question with an ecosystem mindset, one that honours the mosaic of influences which shape Jewish lives—where all these things work in concert to cultivate resilient, lifelong Jewish identities.