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 And if the federal estate tax is repealed, 43 percent said they would increase the amount they designate to an estate plan, compared with 36 percent in 2007.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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

    2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

    3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

    4. Exciting times in Carmel.

    5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

    ADVERTISEMENT