Is it me or did anyone else find the 20/20 story on charity a bit ironic? If you didn’t see the episode it was a John Stosell report in which he interviewed Arthur Brooks who is a Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Professor Brooks has recently released a book called Who Really Cares.
In the book Professor Brooks cites numerous studies done in the field of Charitable Giving. What he learned is shocking to me and it should be to everyone who either hears about his studies or reads his book. He found that across the board Conservatives give more to charity by far then Liberals do. Last time I heard it was the evil Conservatives that didn’t care about the poor and the down-trodden. In a nutshell here is what his studies concluded.
- Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than Liberal households.
- A religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person
- If Liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.
- Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 or 25 were red states in the last presidential election.
- Conservatives give more even though conservative-headed families make slightly less money
His book goes on to detail the relationship of Church attendance and giving. He goes on as well to indite the rich in that even though they give more to charity in ‘real’ dollars the percentage of their income that they donate is not as high as the people at the lower end of the income scale. Researchers told 20/20 that lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.
The interesting thing most of all to me was that the group that gives the least to charity overall is the middle class. In the studies done they give least of all out of all groups when you factor in amount of dollars donated in relation to percentage of total income. To me this is sad.
I was riveted by the 20/20 program because at the beginning of the piece they did their own experiment in that they decided to test the myth that Liberals care more about the less fortunate then Conservatives do so they set up Salvation Army buckets at the busiest locations of two totally contrasting populations. They setup one bucket at Macy’s in San Francisco and the other at a Wal-mart in Sioux Falls South Dakota to see which bucket would collect the most money.
The data they provided about Sioux Falls that it is rural and religious; and that half the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, and of course are predominantly liberal and just 14% in San Fran attend church each week. Which gave more? By far it was Sioux Falls. Which shocked many who 20/20 spoke to.
The United Way’s biggest donors from employees of over $500.00 or more come from a meat packing plant (where you guessed it) in Sioux Falls SD. Now in that plant the average wage is $35,000 a year yet they contribute at higher rates then anywhere else in the country to United Way. I personally would have thought the biggest contributions would be from some Silicone Valley firm where they are in the heart of Liberal country and on the average pull down a lot more dollars then the rest of the country, but no not the case. Sioux Falls SD, wow!
Getting back to the 20/20 story John Stosell also interviewed Ted Turner who has given large sums of money to United Nations programs. Ted has contributed large sums of money to the Democratic Party as well, and is well know for telling the rich to ‘give until it hurts’ that ‘it’s only money’. Mr. Stosell put Ted on the spot in the interview though, and pointed out that the amounts Ted has stated he has contributed to charity still does not come close to the percentage of his income that the working poor contribute the charity as a percentage of their income. That I found very illuminating. Ted said he needs to keep a reserve of 200 million for a rainy day. Anyway very interesting.
So I am going to buy Professor Brooks book so I can digest his numbers and his citations. I must say I didn’t imagine Syracuse University as being a hotbed for conservative thought, so at this point I think his numbers are probably valid.
The question I pose here? Do you think, or are you under the impression that Liberals care more about the poor then Conservatives? If so, is it shocking to hear that in reality when it comes down to actually giving and donating one’s time that Conservatives do more to help the down and out in our Country?
What are your thoughts? I would love the hear them
Popularity: 9%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Brooks’ data isn’t particularly surprising to me. When viewed from both extremes, it makes a lot of sense: extreme conservatives generally believe in private charity rather than government income redistribution, while extreme liberals are more willing to tax themselves (and others) to provide government services. The world-view on giving to charity for those of us between the extremes varies widely, of course.
But the data has some problems, among them: cherry-picking significance criteria in statistical comparisons in order to bolster his arguments; and using some surveys, such as the SCCBS that show liberals making more than conservatives, while representative samples of US population show the opposite, etc.
He also assumes that all charitable giving is directed the same way. His most dramatic findings don’t adequately address the fact that a lot, though certainly not all, of religious giving is akin to paying dues at a club – paying for buildings, staff, internal programs, utilities, etc. When only secular giving is considered, the margin between groups thins significantly. Nor, IIRC, does he examine what type of beneficiaries the groups have for their secular giving – each dollar for the alma mater’s endowment fund counts the same as a dollar for soup at a homeless shelter.
Comparing Sioux Falls, SD, with San Francisco has its own problems, of course. Having lived in big vs. small cities, I can well believe that the size difference alone is confounding the results.
Lastly, I have an issue with dividing the political realm into only liberal and conservative. I suspect the data would be very different if moderate were thrown in, too. In other studies I’ve seen, when so classified, liberals and conservatives are largely indistinguishable, while BOTH groups give (FAR) more than moderates.
The biggest thing about Brooks’ results to me is that instead of being used by one side to bash the other, or give bragging rights, it should really provide a wake-up call to ensure that we’re recognizing the real expressions of social responsibility. Neither rich liberals nor rich conservatives give nearly as much, as a percentage of income, as low-income people. That to me is a shame.
John,
Have you read his book yet? I know I have seen 20/20’s message board where some bashing was going on, and I can surmise that there has been some analysis/spin by the other side on this.
Is your analysis based on that you have read the book already, or is it based on a breakdown or analysis that some left-wing think tanks have already provided on it?
I left out much of what I have learned and I have not yet read the book, such as studies that the religious not only give more to their church but to the community at large, iresspective of maintenance costs.
Anyway just curious if your analysis is yours or if you are quoting somebody else?
Plus your response doesn’t address point number 4. I think that is very illuminating by itself.
I haven’t read the book thoroughly. I perused it at a bookstore and looked at the statistics, and decided it wasn’t worth purchasing. I also looked at Brooks’ web site to confirm the survey sources before I posted, though the site’s mostly a teaser for the book.
I don’t know what analyses from “left-wing think tanks” you refer to (do you have any sources?). I’m usually more partial to reading the output of right-wing think tanks. In any case, I’m not partial to substituting somebody else’s analysis for my own.
As I wrote, yes, after religious donations, Brooks’ thesis is that conservatives still give more, but by a much smaller margin.
Point 4 seems to me a canard. Trying to get meaningful statistics out of such wildly diverse populations as exist in the states seems to me to be silly. Even the idea of “red states” and “blue states” is (with the exception of Idaho and Utah, perhaps) a silly measure in this case, since “conservative” and “liberal” don’t equate precisely to the red/blue party breakdown. And while red/blue is binary, the margins between parties are generally so small (except, perhaps in Idaho) that the distinction should be between shades of purple instead. For instance, Idaho District 33 voted for Jerry Shively (D) and Jerry Brady (D), and HJR2 by over 60%. Is it red or blue?
John,
I guess your right. The margins in the South between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to voting and elections is hmmm razor thin? I mean gosh there are so many Democrats elected down there that it’s a virtual toss up in every election.
Now I know the South doesn’t comprise that many States so my citing them is well a ‘conard’.
I love your quote ‘Trying to get meaningful statistics out of such wildly diverse populations as exist in the states seems to me to be silly’, I will have to remember that the next time you quote any statistics when you run for office again, or in your writings in the PR. Great quote, because the last time I checked… Dems love statistics… they live and die by them, without them they can’t wield the mighty regulatory, and fiscatory arm of the government in an attempt to ‘equalize’ our outcomes.
However I can appreciate your intellectual might where you can ‘peruse’ a book at a bookstore and be able to distill years of research to conclude in very short time that it ‘wasn’t worth purchasing’. Perhaps when I am done reading it I will give a copy to you so you can really look into the numbers the research, not that I would expect your to change your mind. But John, I have found even in the most ardently leftwing books that I have read, I am always able to take some knowledge away from what I have read and am a better person for it.
I do love the fact that your partial to reading right-wing think tank works. Perhaps it will further allow you to reach out to the ‘blue’ district 33.
Beyond tallying the scorecards, a question was asked a few weeks ago that did not get answered.
The question was how much the local United Way donates to the local Boy Scouts? Someone was asking in the chatbox what dollar amounts and what percentage of BS funds are from united way?
Good question. I know the Boy Scouts are fairly tight lipped about where and how much funds they get.
I don’t know United Ways policy and how open they are?
I know Ken Taylor used to be one of the leaders of the United Way here in town and I know he is a big supporter of the BSA, so I don’t know myself.
Now I know the South doesn’t comprise that many States so my citing them is well a ‘conard’.
Well, it’s only a canard if you’re trying to mislead. I assume that you’re not.
I love your quote … I will have to remember that the next time you quote any statistics when you run for office again, or in your writings in the PR. Great quote, because the last time I checked… Dems love statistics… they live and die by them,
Huh?
Certainly one cannot make informed decisions about many areas of government policy without a firm grasp of statistics. But that’s never been a partisan issue – all sides freely use statistics to support their arguments. The key is to try to ensure that the statistical techniques and inferences are valid.
My point was that using states as a proxy for an overall population statistic was wrong, especially when the measure is a binary statistic like red/blue. There are too many differences between states (e.g., population, urbanization, party strength, political participation, poverty, etc) to use them to draw inferences about the US population as a whole by giving them equal weight.
without them they can’t wield the mighty regulatory, and fiscatory arm of the government in an attempt to ‘equalize’ our outcomes.
I’ve never heard a Democrat argue for equalized outcomes (as opposed to equal opportunity, which is a staple of Democratic politics). It’s certainly never been a goal that I’ve supported.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘fiscatory’, so I’m unclear what “arm†of government you’re talking about. If you meant “fiscal”, that’s really the combined responsibility of both the Executive and Legislative branches, so I’m still not sure what part of government you’re referring to.
Perhaps when I am done reading it I will give a copy to you so you can really look into the numbers the research,
Thanks, but no need – the book doesn’t have the numbers, and Brooks’ web site has the references to the data he used. I was already familiar with the SCCBS, which is the basis for most of his analysis, along with the GSS and America Gives Survey.
I know the Boy Scouts are fairly tight lipped about where and how much funds they get.
Form 990’s are public info. For 2004 (the last one I found on a quick search) the Grand Teton Council had revenues of about $2.62M and expenditures of about $2.60M.
I don’t know United Ways policy and how open they are?
United Way disbursements are public info. I called the IF United way and got the number for 2006: $49,934.
My mistake on the tight lipped BSA concerning their finances, it’s their penchant for sealing cases that got me there.
Way to go John on making the call to the United Way.. I’m sure Joe appreciates that.
The dollar amount that the local United Way gives to the Boy Scouts is more than they give any other agency. And at the same time they are begging from the United Way, the Boy Scouts can afford to pay their administrators six-figure salaries. I think there are a lot more worthy charities. In my opinion the Boy Scouts have a lot of nerve to even ask for the money in the first place. Especially when they are so tight-lipped about other issues.
Typical Idahoan.
I hate Idahoans. That’s all I’m going to say.
How can you say one group gives more than another? That’s outrageous to think.
Everyone gives. IT’s as simple as that.
I do not know what to think about the debate here, the data and arguments are persuasive both ways.
I do know your comment is especially unhelpful, Doug. You make a broad generalization against a group of people based on geography, and state your extreme bias against that group. Those are not intelligent arguments.
I guess your “simple” generalization fits with your previous generalization about Idahoans, though.
Your comment has huge shortcomings. Try a comment that is persuasive instead of dismissive. Try to sway others with intelligent speech and facts instead of a boastful claim.