IBJNews

Study: Rich still giving to charity, but in smaller amounts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Despite the recession, wealthy Americans still gave to charitable causes last year, a new study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University reveals. The overall amount of giving, however, fell dramatically. 

Study results show 98 percent of high net-worth households donated to charity in 2009—a figure consistent with findings from studies done before the economy soured.

But those donors scaled back their contributions by nearly 35 percent in 2009. The study found that average charitable giving dropped from $83,034 in 2007 to $54,016 in 2009, after adjusting for inflation.

This is the center’s third such study, which started in 2005 and is published every other year in a report for Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America to gauge wealthy giving trends.

“What we have often stressed is that high-net-worth donors have remained committed to giving,” said Una Osili, the center's director of research.

Although total charitable dollars fell, giving as a portion of income remained somewhat steady at 9 percent, compared with 11 percent in 2007.

Wealthy philanthropists appeared to adjust their priorities in response to the recession. The portion who gave to basic human needs rose from 75 percent in 2007 to 85 percent in 2009.

Results of the study were taken from 800 households randomly surveyed in affluent neighborhoods across the country. Households in the sampling had an annual income of more than $200,000 and/or a net worth of at least $1 million, excluding the value of a primary residence. The average net worth of respondents was $10 million.

Sectors on the rise in attracting more money were the arts, environment/animal care and international giving, which includes disaster relief. Contributions to health- and education-related causes declined last year.

More than half, about 55 percent, of wealthy households gave their largest gift in 2009 to fund a not-for-profit’s basic operations. Far fewer households (24 percent) made their largest gift to support the growth of an organization, capital campaign (14 percent), or for long-term needs (11 percent) compared with 2007.

Tax considerations also play a role in decisions to give, the study found. Two-thirds said they would cut their contributions if they were not tax-deductible, up from 47 percent in 2007. And if the federal estate tax is repealed, 43 percent said they would increase the amount they designate to an estate plan, compared with 36 percent in 2007.

Giving to charity, however, means more than just financial support. Volunteering is important, as well, and the wealthy are more than generous with their time, the study found.

About 79 percent volunteered last year. And the percentage who gave more than 200 hours of their time rose significantly, from 27 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2009.

Osili attributed the increase to job loss and baby-boomer retirements in addition to a general interest in volunteering.

Volunteering time and giving money seem to go hand-in-hand, according to the study. Those who volunteered more than 200 hours donated an average of $75,662 to charity in 2009, while those who volunteered less time contributed an average of $46,414.

Though the wealthy continue to give, Osili said, the economy still affects decisions.

“When economic conditions improve, charitable giving improves as well,” she said.

In fact, 35 percent of households last year stopped giving to at least one organization, and 27 percent stopped giving to at least two.

The top reasons cited for stopping donations:

— Too frequent solicitations, or asking for inappropriate amounts;

— Decided to support other causes;

— Household circumstances changed;

— Charity changed leadership or activities.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • No Surprise
    The rich are the most generous with their money. Why? Because they have more money to give! The lower the taxes on the rich the more they will have to give to the private charitable organizations of their choosing. Amazing how this simple concept eludes the left.
    • No surprise
      "The top reasons cited for stopping donations:
      ââ?¬â?? Decided to support other causes;"

      WELL, that "other cause" was probably the Republican party, which works hard to make sure the ultra rich get their tax cuts.

    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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT