Approximately 1,200 invitations were sent to respondents believed to represent initiatives in North America and Europe that had been founded in the late 1990s or later. A self-registration site permitted prospective respondents to identify themselves and their initiatives and request a survey invitation; the site also included a "refer-a-friend" feature to encourage people to invite startup leaders to register. More than 300 such registrations were recorded; at least 30 came from initiatives outside North America and Europe, and many already were in the sample.

A total of 660 responses were received. 430 valid responses were received from among the 750-773 North American initiatives believed to be in the sample; 192 valid responses were received from among the 396-412 European initiatives believed to be in the sample. The remainder came from Israel, Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and North Africa, and Latin America (including Mexico). Of the 414 responses from U.S.-based initiatives, 349 qualified as autonomous or independent non-commercial initiatives founded 10 years ago or more recently (2000-2010). Of the 16 responses from Canadian initiatives, 15 qualified. Of the European responses, 136 qualified. The response rate to the survey for North American initiatives was 55-57% and 46-48% in Europe; more precise calculations are impossible due to the possibility of duplicate invitations sent to the same organization, as well as the possibility of invitations sent to initiatives that had ceased to exist. The extremely low number of responses from Canada makes it impossible to report certain country-specific data, such as legal form, with any real certainty. However, we have reported certain key findings for Canada where they appear to differ substantially from the U.S. results. .

The 2010 Survey of New Jewish Initiatives was completed by one "top leader" at each surveyed initiative, most frequently the senior professional or lay leader. 75% of respondents described themselves as the founder or leading co-founder of the initiative for which they were responding. 63% self-identified as the CEO/executive director (19% were in other professional positions), while 9% self-identified as the board chair/co-chair (9% were other board members, volunteers, or alumni). As such, the findings described here are based on self-reported data, albeit data provided by the most knowledgeable informants. While we caution that the broad implications in the key findings may not be applicable to any particular initiative, given the estimated response rate well above 50%, we are confident that this data is as representative as possible of North American Jewish startups a whole.


Our total organizational population estimate falls within a range that takes into account both the overall response rate and the assumed characteristics of non-responding initiatives. Our experience with non-responding initiatives in the 2008 Survey, including follow-up data collection of the founding dates of those non-responding initiatives, suggests that they would have qualified to be included at about three fourths the rate of those initiatives that did respond. In 2010, approximately 320-343 North American initiatives did not respond; we estimate that among them at least 203-218 initiatives that would have qualified to be included-and very likely more, given that the 2010 criteria for inclusion were broader than the 2008 criteria. Thus we estimate that as of April 2010 there were around 600 Jewish startups.


Because many people are affiliated with more than one initiative and thus may appear in multiple attendee counts, we have developed a rough methodology to account for the potential overlap in participants. In 2008, we estimated, conservatively, that unique individuals accounted for 54%-60% of the combined reported participant figures. This estimate was based on the assumption that the 45% of participants "deeply involved" in the organized Jewish community were, on average, connected to as many as three Jewish startups; the 29% "moderately involved" were connected to up to two startups; and the 26% with no other meaningful connection were involved with one startup. Using the same methodology updated for 2010, we estimate that unique individuals account for 54%-60% of the aggregate reported participant figures, or approximately 630,000 people; around 115,000 are regular participants and core members.


There is an important difference between the 2008 and 2010 surveys: whereas the 2008 survey included only initiatives with budgets of $2 million or less, the 2010 survey invited responses from new initiatives of all budget sizes, not just those with budgets of $2 million or less. Because of the broader reach of the 2010 survey, we believe that the annual budget data for this year is more representative of the Jewish startup sector as a whole than the data reported from the 2008 survey. Nonetheless, we believe that the 2008 data remains broadly representative of the field, not only because the vast majority of Jewish startups have budgets well below $2 million, but also because side-by-side analysis of the 2008 and 2010 data shows that the new 2010 respondents have smaller average budgets overall. This is true not only of startups founded in 2009 and 2010, but also of respondents to the 2010 survey which would have been eligible for the 2008 survey but did not participate. This is verified by comparison of the budgets of respondents indicating that they were familiar with the 2008 survey and/or The Innovation Ecosystem with the budgets of those who were not. The budgets of those previously unfamiliar with the survey-irrespective of the initiative's founding year-were considerably lower.