The Poor are the Most Generous Givers
Americans in the lowest 20% income group are comparatively the most generous – and their giving declines less during hard times than the giving of the more affluent. Members of this group – the least educated, the oldest, and the most religious – with an average pre-tax household income of $10,531, gave on average 4.3 percent of their income to charity in 2007. The richest 20% gave at less than half that rate: 2.1%. The three income groups in the middle all gave less than 3%.
Frank Greve, reporting for McClatchy Newspapers, did a wonderful job finding quotes and anecdotes to bring to life an engaging story (highlighted this morning by Philanthropy Today) from a Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer survey.
“The lowest-income fifth (of the population) always give at more than their capacity,” according to Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector.
Why? “As a rule, people who have money don’t know people in need,” suggested a laid-off security guard and single mother. She added, “I believe that the more I give, the more I receive, and that God loves a cheerful giver.”
Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of Who Really Cares, an analysis of giving in the US, suggests that church-attendance is the key factor. Certainly many church-goers tithe and McClatchy provided some anecdotal evidence for this view, yet other themes also emerged. One nonreligious giver, living on a fixed income, suggested that it lights up his life to look into the face of someone he is being generous to. Another giver suggested that living with little money made one less fearful of poverty than more affluent Americans.
Several themes especially struck me, based on the anecdotes in Greve’s report: Identifying or empathizing with others; personal encounters – at a bus stop, for instance – with others in need; and a fearlessness about making genuine ‘stretch’ gifts. The giving illustrated was more personal, more immediate – with instant gratification in some cases, and more of a sacrifice than the typical experience of a financially secure donor writing a check in response to an annual appeal letter.
I recommend this article, which is thought-provoking on a number of levels. The link I provide is to a longer version of the piece (with a nifty table) than the version the Chronicle of Philanthropy linked to.
Just a final word: this may be more than a human interest story or a sociological slice of life – offering insights into major gift fundraising. Think about cultivation and stewardship activities. Why do we do what we do with major donors? To increase their involvement, to make it more personal, to show them first-hand the results of their giving and the people they’ve helped, to provide satisfaction; in short, to light up their lives.
