Who gives more to charity?

[Danno 1,228]

Mugged by data: Research reveals who the truly compassionate are

By George Will

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032708.php3

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

* Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

* Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

* Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

* Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

* In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin — it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide — is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes.

Ralph Nader, running for President in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others." In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

[meowmeowmeow 1]

i'm actually not surprised.

[Tsup2 0]

Liberals want to use everyone else money for the common good, not their own.

[Danno 1,228]

i'm actually not surprised.

I generally think the "best" of people and would have assumed it to be about equal.

[catknit 144]

I'd be curious if there happened to be a breakdown of what qualifies as charity and how the numbers were crunched. Was the data pulled from tax records and what people wrote off their taxes? Some people don't take deductions on charitable donations - they give cause they give and don't want to mess around with receipts.

Also, is contributing to your local house of worship considered charity? In many many many houses of worship a huge chunk of the money is used for administrative and capital expenditures [paying the clergy/keeping the lights on/etc]. In those types of cases, the money isn't necessairly going into the community.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not disbuting the numbers - I'm just thinking that $100 to the United Way may be worth more to the larger population than $100 to a local church. That's not to say the church doesn't/can't use the money or that obviously people can donate to what ever they want to. It's just if the article is going to throw in the religion aspect - that should be taken into consideration. Funding your house of worship may be important to you but the connotation of charity, as I read this piece, is more a broad spectrum helping those who may be in desparate straights and making sure the lights in your house of worship is for a limited crowd.

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

i'm actually not surprised.

ditto

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Cuz libs in general only take.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I think if you removed religious organizations from the equation it would dramatically shift things around. I see a lot of conservative individuals giving to their organized religion but not to very much else. I see a lot of liberally focused individuals giving to a much greater variety of charitable organizations that provide services to others not directly related to them or their 'immediate environment' like their church.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Kathryn41

[Krikit 1,165]

Also, a lot of people give of their time instead of/in addition to their money.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It seems that the more Socialism that takes place then the less to private charity that is given. I would prefer to give to a more local charity as it tends to be closer to home. What difference is it that is to religious services as they tend to help many with less overhead and costs so that more of donations is actually spent on the services.

[catknit 144]

See, that's where I'm not too sure - let's say I give to Catknit's Temple of Knitting for God. Those donations may be going directly to services I myself use - worship services, education programs, support groups using the Temple's buildings. I'm not sure that's the definition of compassion as the article title states. Obviously, there are many local based religious organizations that do outside work but how much of the coffers are going out the door to non-donors?

I can say based on personal experience with local religious organizations that one was beyond proud that they had hit the 25% level in giving out side their own needs. In this case, I'd consider my "compassionate" contribution to be in the 25% arena, maybe 30% if you include non-donating people who are using the services provided but not the full 100% of what was donated. Other organizations I worked with were as low as 5%.

[GabiandVi 34]

Charities, religious or non-religious, do use a large portion of their donations on administration. I don't think an argument can be made that religious charities use more for admin than non-religious charities. In fact, in a lot of churches, there are regular collections for regular charitable distribution including administration, regular church services like soup kitchens, etc., and special collections for outreach programs and missions, etc. And I remember a big stink a few years ago about administration expenses of the Red Cross and then about a UN charity. And while some religions spend money on marketing and publicity, I would bet it's a fraction of what the non-religious charities spend on the same.

And I think you would be surprised by how many conservatives donate to non-religious charities. I know people on both sides of the spectrum. (I even have a cousin who was a US representative and is now in an appointed postion under this administration while my father is a big time conservative.) And they all give time and money to charitable organizations. I have no clue how much money they give, except for my dad. (It is a controversy in my family because he gives wads to schools, non-religious charities, and to the church but is tight when it comes to things like phone bills, etc.) But I do know that most of my conservative friends and acquaintances are more involved in service activities, religious and non-religious (such as medical research, scholarships, tutoring programs, etc.) and most of my liberal friends and acquaintances are more vocal and involved in more activist activities.

And a lot of religious charities do works far flung from their local donators. In fact, about half of the charities I encountered working in my husband's country were religion based.

Of course, these are just my anecdotal observations. Beyond our own anecdotals, we can only rely on the numbers.

[Danno 1,228]

I'd be curious if there happened to be a breakdown of what qualifies as charity and how the numbers were crunched. Was the data pulled from tax records and what people wrote off their taxes? Some people don't take deductions on charitable donations - they give cause they give and don't want to mess around with receipts.

Also, is contributing to your local house of worship considered charity? In many many many houses of worship a huge chunk of the money is used for administrative and capital expenditures [paying the clergy/keeping the lights on/etc]. In those types of cases, the money isn't necessairly going into the community.

Those are good points to ponder and I thought of them myself.

Here is what the researcher said in an interview on his book. The bold lettering is mine.

---------------------------

Lopez: And conservatives are more generous than liberals — is it really that simple?

Brooks: No, it’s really not a question of politics per se — it goes much deeper, to the values that lie beneath political views. My book explores four areas of our culture that lead people to give, or not: religious faith, attitudes about the government’s role in our lives, the source of one’s income, and family. These are the big drivers of giving in America today, and the biggest is religion. Religious folks give far more than secularists in every way I’ve been able to measure. For example, people who attend a house of worship every week are 25 percentage points more likely to give to charity each year than people who never go to church, and give away about four times as much money. And this is not just a question of religious people giving to their churches, as meritorious as that might be: They also give and volunteer significantly more to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.

Actually the interview is kinda interesting so I'll include all of it.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: So, conservatives really are compassionate?

Arthur Brooks: Yes, especially when it comes to private charitable giving. This, for much of America, is the “surprising truth” in my book’s title. For a lot of folks, this contradicts an entrenched stereotype that conservatives are stingy and venal because they tend to be against a lot of government income redistribution. According to one ham-handed (but amazingly popular) campaign sign in upstate New York before the 2004 presidential election, “Bush Must Go! Human Need, Not Corporate Greed.” When we look at actual private charity, however, we see conservatives do just fine. For example, conservative-headed families in 2000 gave about 30 percent more money per year than liberal-headed families on average, while (in these data, at least), earning 6 percent less income.

This is not to commit the opposite sin and say that liberals are all selfish (we often find that liberals give more than moderates, for example). It’s just that they are conspicuously not more privately generous than conservatives, in spite of the rhetoric.

Lopez: And conservatives are more generous than liberals — is it really that simple?

Brooks: No, it’s really not a question of politics per se — it goes much deeper, to the values that lie beneath political views. My book explores four areas of our culture that lead people to give, or not: religious faith, attitudes about the government’s role in our lives, the source of one’s income, and family. These are the big drivers of giving in America today, and the biggest is religion. Religious folks give far more than secularists in every way I’ve been able to measure. For example, people who attend a house of worship every week are 25 percentage points more likely to give to charity each year than people who never go to church, and give away about four times as much money. And this is not just a question of religious people giving to their churches, as meritorious as that might be: They also give and volunteer significantly more to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.

Obviously, religion also correlates pretty strongly with politics, which is one reason why conservatives appear to give so much.

Lopez: Are there any surprising caveats?

Brooks: Yes. Most surprising is that the least privately charitable group out there tends to be secular conservatives, who give and volunteer even less than secular liberals, and far less than religious conservatives. For example, secular conservatives are only about half as likely as religious conservatives to volunteer. The reason secularists don’t drag down the conservative charity numbers overall is that there are three times as many religious conservatives as there are secular conservatives.

Lopez: Surely that religious people are generous isn’t that surprising, right? The collection basket is just a normal part of their lives, right?

Brooks: It’s probably not surprising to NRO readers, but it is surprising to a lot of folks out there, who see religion as superstition leading people to be less accepting of others, and religious contributions as little more than glorified country club dues. Many people I know find it almost unbelievable that religious people are 21 percentage points more likely than secularists to volunteer for totally nonreligious causes; or that they are about twice as likely to donate blood.

Lopez: Why does all of this matter?

Brooks: One of the most exciting areas of social science research involves the benefits of charitable behavior to givers, their communities, and our nation. There is a growing body of evidence that giving stimulates personal prosperity, strong communities, good citizenship, and a healthier nation. In other words, charity is not just about cash for services (which theoretically, the government could provide with tax revenues). Rather, it enhances quality of life for givers and those around them.

Lopez: How will being charitable make me happy, healthy and rich?

Brooks: Charitable giving and volunteering are tremendously pleasurable. They also empower givers, making them feel less like victims, and give people a lot of meaning in their lives. I have talked to clinical psychologists who actually prescribe volunteer work to their patients, with amazing results. Studies also show that givers are admired and elevated to positions of influence and authority. It is hardly surprising, given all the evidence, that givers enjoy (on average) higher happiness and prosperity than non-givers do. In fact, my research leads me to the belief that the single best self-help strategy is to serve others.

Lopez: What does your data mean for the term “bleeding heart”?

Brooks: According to the popular lexicon, “bleeding hearts” are those who most want to raise taxes and redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Yet the data show that these folks are actually less likely to give away their own money than are those whose hearts apparently don’t bleed quite so much. For example, people who disagree that “the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality,” privately give away, on average, four times more money than people who agree.

And speaking of bleeding, one survey in 2002 asked people about their views on government welfare and how often they gave blood. It showed that, if everyone gave blood like “hard-hearted” opponents of government welfare spending, the nation’s blood supply would rise by about 30 percent. I won’t say which side is right about welfare spending (that’s a different question), but I will note that some may find irony in the link with private giving.

Lopez: Have you gotten grief in academia for your book?

Brooks: Not too much — at least not yet. Of course, there will be disagreement, and other scholars will probably look into my results, asking different questions and using new data. But that’s how research is supposed to take knowledge forward. In fact, one measure of the success of this book will be how it stimulates new work and discussion on charity, whether that work agrees with my findings or not.

I’ve had more pushback from some in the media, who occasionally suggest that the book is just part of a political agenda (for the record, I am a registered Independent). This often involves noting my affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute or some appearances on conservative talk radio. Nobody ever seems to point out that I am a professor at Syracuse University — hardly a hotbed of right-wingers — or that I’ve done public radio as well as Rush Limbaugh.

Lopez: Does your research pretty much guarantee that I will be getting more Christmas gifts than Arianna Huffington?

Brooks: Well, that depends on your friends! And even more, it depends on how much you give. I suspect Santa will be pretty good to Arianna Huffington this year, though.

Lopez: You’ve written too about the “fertility gap”? Are all the stingy liberal atheists going to die out?

Brooks: You mean, like Europe?

Lopez: If you could drill one fact from your research into congressional appropriators, what would it be?

Brooks: Government actions have unintended consequences for private charity. When the government subsidizes activities or regulates private behavior, it can and often does dramatically reduce charitable giving. And this has real consequences for individuals and communities. This is not an anti-government philosophy; it is an appeal to policymakers to remember that charity is an exceptional American value, and to respect it as such.

Lopez: What’s the single weirdest fact in your book?

Brooks: There are lots of strange facts about American charity. Here’s one that involves the differences between giving by the rich and poor: Americans with high incomes are more likely than poor folks to give directions to strangers on the street. In contrast, the poor are more likely to give a homeless person food or money. The practical implication of this is that, if you find yourself in a strange city and need directions, ask a rich person. If you need a sandwich, ask a poor person.

<title>Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brookes</title>

[GabiandVi 34]

That last bit is fascinating. The first article didn't surprise me at all. My father tells us this all the time. But I was surprised at some of the details in the elaboration.

[Danno 1,228]

That last bit is fascinating. The first article didn't surprise me at all. My father tells us this all the time. But I was surprised at some of the details in the elaboration.

I thought it interesting that "religious" conservatives give the most, Non-religious Conservatives give the Least.