IBJNews

Report: Charitable giving almost back to pre-recession levels

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Charitable giving in the United States continues to recover from its recession-induced slump, reaching an estimated $335.2 billion last year, a new study concludes.

Donations from individuals, corporations and foundations were up 4.4 percent from 2012, or 3 percent after adjusting for inflation, according to Giving USA 2014: The Annual Report on Philanthropy.

Researchers at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy gather data for the nearly 60-year-old annual study, published by the Chicago-based Giving USA Foundation. Results were released Tuesday.

After four straight years of gains, total giving is up 22 percent since 2009 (or 12 percent when adjusted for inflation), the study said. Charitable giving surpassed $344 billion at its height in 2007.

“The growth in giving over the past two years suggests that a return to the peak level of total giving we saw prior to the recession could occur sooner rather than later,” Associate Dean Patrick M. Rooney said in a prepared statement.

Individuals have been particularly generous, representing 73 percent of the total growth in giving since 2011. Personal gifts were up 4.2 percent in 2013, to an estimated $240.6 billion, the study found. Bequests were up 8.7 percent, to $27.7 billion.

Corporations increased their giving by more than 19 percent over the past five years, according to the study, but contributions declined almost 2 percent last year, to $17.9 billion.

Foundation giving was up an estimated 5.7 percent last year, to nearly $49 billion, the report said.

Most types of charities are benefiting from the philanthropic recovery.

“While this has been a particularly slow recovery, many charities are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel,” foundation Chairman L. Gregg Carlson said in the statement. “Donors are increasingly more comfortable giving to the causes they care about and at a level in keeping with the impact they would like to make.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT