The Generosity Index
Has everyone seen or heard about the Generosity Index. It was recently published and posted at the following website.
[Philanthropy]
It appears that there is a significant disparity between some of the very rich states compared with the poorer ones.
The article specifically gives some interpretations about the index; such as the state’s philosophy of government roles and religious beliefs.
Kentucky ranked 21 and Indiana 24 overall. Certainly there is room for improvement.
The top 4 states in generosity were Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Oklahoma and each of these were among the poorest 8 states.
You will see that the generosity rank of the lowest 4 states are also among the richest: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Remind me again what color those states were!
[Philanthropy]
It appears that there is a significant disparity between some of the very rich states compared with the poorer ones.
The article specifically gives some interpretations about the index; such as the state’s philosophy of government roles and religious beliefs.
Kentucky ranked 21 and Indiana 24 overall. Certainly there is room for improvement.
The top 4 states in generosity were Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Oklahoma and each of these were among the poorest 8 states.
You will see that the generosity rank of the lowest 4 states are also among the richest: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Remind me again what color those states were!
posted by Anonymous at 6:23 AM
5 Comments:
Was it Disraeli or Mark Twain who spoke of "lies. damned lies and statistics?"
In any case, here's another side to the story:
"Scrooged: Are New Englanders as cheap as the Generosity Index makes us out to be?”
An excerpt:
"Philanthropy has always been a hot-button topic because it deals with both wealth and need," says Paul Schervish, director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. "Who has legitimate wealth and who doesn't? Who has legitimate need and who doesn't?" And, he might have added, how much can people really afford to give away?
The Generosity Index ignores those questions. It only sifts through IRS tax data to compare states' average adjusted gross income and average itemized charitable deductions.
The author of your rebuttal also admits that this is thought provoking and could have some validity.
"A thought-provoking pattern, yes -- but it isn't necessarily true."
The problem with any study is all of the other variables. But based on actual numbers that can be obtained and not estimated by "number crunchers" wishing to skew results in their favor, this study is valid and they do talk about those other issues.
It's also interesting to note that the index includes money given to religious organizations. It simply follows from this that states where church attendance (and collection plate passing) are more prevalent would score better than states where it's not as prevalent. Given the already well established link between Bush and the Christian Right, the whole red state comparison is meaningless, only pointing out what we already know.
What's not measured at all is the actual amount of money given that finds its way to the underprivileged where it would arguably have the most impact. If that factor were measured, its entirely possible and likely probable that less religious (blue) states, where most giving occurs at the secular level, would be much higher on the list.
Church donations are measurable as tax deductions but don't necessarily relate to sharing with the less fortunate. For a local example, reference Northside Christian who publishes their accepted weekly donations in a pamphlet. Their donations add up to thousands a week- for their building and budget campaigns. I don't think most people would consider building yourself a new multi-million dollar buidling an act of charity.
Church donations are not the only charitable giving that can be itemized and I am sure that anyone who itemizes tries to list all potential charitable giving.
Again these numbers are factual based on reproducible data. Unlike other more biased info.
As far as Northside, you have no idea of what percentage of their budget goes toward true charity or other services. It is your opinion that it is a small amount, but I am not sure that is accurate.
Church growth is important to help with many outreach programs.
At no point did I express an opinion about what percentage of Northside's income goes towards actual charity. What I suggested was that at least a couple of million of it goes toward the building of their compound.
Since we don't know how much is used for which purpose, it's simply not accurate to portray all of it as charity.
The index doesn't take into account the cost of living and it's affect on discretionary income. Someone making $60,000 in rural Arkansas is much wealthier than someone making the same amount in Manhattan. A person making that amount in Manhattan could be donating 100% of their discretionary income (a generous as anyone could possibly be) and show as numerically inferior to someone in Arkansas who donates only 25% of their discretionary income. In order to guage generosity, it would be much more accurate to measure what percentage of discretionary income is donated.
It's easy to skew the numbers if you don't account for various cost factors. Gas prices are also higher in urban areas back east than they are in Mississippi for example. If I just loooked at raw data concerning the amount spent on gasoline and no other factors, I could fairly easily claim that the average New Yoker drives more than someone living in suburban Mississippi. That would be valid according to the simple logic of the numbers but not true. Truth and validity aren't the same thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home