New Study: Who Actually Donates Time and money to Charities?

[DKW 86 7,440]

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/news/online_cli...9_PS_brooks.asp

Saw this yesterday in the Bham News. The Prof doing the research has been working on this for about ten years, using ten different data bases. He has been a registered Dem and Republican and now calls himself strongly Ind. He talks about how the Left will react adn how shocked he was at his findings as well. He is a part time writer for the WSJ. He is a full time Prof at Syracuse.

Who's More Generous: Liberals or Conservatives?

Findings of Philanthropy Expert Are a Surprise, Especially to Himself

Sunday, October 29, 2006

By Frank Brieaddy

Staff writer

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, to be released next month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance to two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, (Basic Books, $26) is due for release Nov. 24.

Arthur C. Brooks

Born: May 21, 1964, Spokane, Wash.

Early employment: French horn player with the Annapolis Brass Quintet and the Barcelona (Spain) Symphony Orchestra; professor of French horn, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Fla.

Education: B.A. in economics, Thomas Edison State College, Trenton, N.J.; M.A. in economics, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fla.; master's and doctorate, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, Calif.

Academic appointments: Director of nonprofit studies, professor of public administration, Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and research director, William E. Smith Institute for Association Research; previously, assistant professor of public administration and economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Publications: Multiple academic journal and newspaper articles; regular op-ed contributor to The Wall Street Journal; "Social Entrepreneurship: A Modern Approach to Social Value Creation," published by Prentice-Hall.

Personal: Married; three children; lives in DeWitt.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Months before those words came off the press, news of his research reached the producers of ABC's "20/20," who filmed extensive interviews with Brooks to be aired next month in a one-hour special dealing with charity and philanthropy.

The fact that ABC will focus on the political, rather than cultural, aspects of his book frightens him less than the potential for a call from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' hard-hitting conservative commentator.

"I can say no, if I want to," he said.

Wall Street Journal columnist

The truth, Brooks says, is that if an interview with O'Reilly means furthering his message that America needs more charity -- especially from those who call themselves liberal -- he'd probably do it.

For the record, Brooks has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

His describes his research as more cultural than political, but he's well aware of the political implications of his book.

"The New York Times Book Review, they're going to flatten me. I'm just dead," he said, adding that he thinks the Times pans any book perceived to be conservative. :headslap:

A representative of the Times said it has no plans to review the book.

Brooks has been showing up more and more on the radar screens of professionals and academics in the field of philanthropy since he was named director of nonprofit studies in 2003 for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

He has lectured in Spain and Russia and maintains a schedule of about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences across the country and around the world, including, recently, at the Thailand Ministry of Finance, the American Society of Association Executives and the Federal Bar Association.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him) and another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

He says the pieces are byproducts of his research and they serve his penchant for iconoclasm.

He explains, "My shtick, if I've got one, for The Wall Street Journal is, 'Everything you thought you knew is wrong.'"

"Arthur is a terrific op-ed writer," said Tunku Varadarajan, editorial page features editor for The Wall Street Journal. "His pieces are piquant and counterintuitive, and his arguments -- however provocative -- always have a foundation in fact and careful research. He is also capable of making a complex point in a mere 500 words, a rare skill in this verbose age in which we live."

Not counting the appendix, the book is 183 pages.

Conservatives give more

Brooks says he is a behavioral economist by training, who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact. He considers charity and philanthropy an important, fascinating and vastly under-researched field.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he expects and encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements. He writes that every tax dollar a nonprofit accepts "crowds out" 50 cents in voluntary contributions.

He merely mentions the balance between government and donated dollars for nonprofits, but does not address that balance.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000, "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute's Center for Nonprofit Leadership, said he's anxious to read Brooks' book, because he can't fathom the conclusions it draws.

Government spending for safety-net needs is absolutely essential and cannot possibly be replaced by philanthropy, he said, adding that he's leery about the huge sums dedicated to foundations by people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

He said the distribution of that money raises big issues about fairness which would be even greater if it was perceived as a replacement for government spending. He cited an article he did for the Chronicle of Philanthropy about 2,500 donors of $1 million or more which found that most of the money went to universities, medical institutions and museums.

"Only a handful gave any money to anti-poverty organizations, local community groups and social service organizations," he said.

Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, said Brooks is emerging as what academics call a public intellectual, an academic expert who becomes recognized and respected by the general public.

Lenkowsky, who has served in the administrations of the last three presidents, most recently as chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, is a colleague of Brooks who has not read his book, but is familiar with his research and findings.

"It's going to be one of the big books in philanthropy," he said.

He says its impact could be as great as that of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam, who wrote the 2000 best-seller "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," setting off a national discussion about the decline of participation in group activities and its effect on society.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

[otterinbham 0]

Well, this seems logical to me, chiefly because it stems from conservative's philosophical philosophical beliefs in the role of government.

Conservatives tend to believe that government's role should be minimized, and that it is up to individuals to support charities and public institutions. Not to be self-congratulatory, but my household in the past two or three years have donated or given time to our church, the American Diabetes Association, the Alabama Ballet, the Cornerstone School, the Bell Center, the Hospitality Network, Habitat for Humanity, the American Red Cross, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. And, when measured against some of our more active neighbors, it really doesn't compare.

Liberal thought tends to believe that government is the most efficient conduit of funding for these services. Therefore, by supporting a larger government, they are supporting these organizations and the work they do. This is not supposition on my part. It's an opinion I've heard from my liberal friends (although they now prefer the term "progressive") time and again. And it also manifests itself whenever government funding to anything is cut. I've sat on enough charitable boards to hear the familiar complaint: "What will we do if we lose our government funding?" My response is always the same: "Market yourself. Because begging the government for money is not a marketing plan." The sad thing about this pervasive belief is that it is patently untrue--government is slow to provide funds, insists on so many strings that funding becomes more of a burden than a benefit, and is way too subject to political factors to be reliable.

So, no, this doesn't surprise me one bit.

[DKW 86 7,440]

We need to have lunch one day. I have a few ideas that we need to talk about.

[CCTAU 3,345]

We need to have lunch one day. I have a few ideas that we need to talk about.

Is this where this thread turns hom..........

Never mind.