Anyone who has done any canvassing door-to-door can vouch for the fact that the giving percentage in poor neighborhoods is much higher than that of wealthy (or even middle class) neighborhoods. While one $60 contribution from a wealthy donor may more than equal ten $5 contributions from poor donors, which would you rather have? [OK, maybe some of you would say the $60, but you obviously know nothing about organizing...]Connecticut ranks first when it comes to making money -- but joins New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island at the bottom of an annual index of charitable giving. The Catalogue for Philanthropy's 2004 Generosity Index showed Mississippi -- the nation's poorest state -- as the nation's most giving state for the eighth straight year. It was followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee.
The only thing that makes me curious, after looking at the list of leading "generous" states, is how much of this Southern charity is going to support evangelical churches? Hmmm...maybe generosity isn't such a good thing.
3 comments:
Unfortunately it looks like Michelle Malkin is already all over this story...
Not one of my well-off trust-fund friends have ever bought me lunch or a beer when I've been down-and-out, whereas my minimum-wage working-prole friends never fail to help me out. It's almost like the perfect stereotype: I wonder whether miserly selfishness a cultural trait handed down through the generations, or if having lots of money automatically confers that "I've got mine, screw you" attitude at the outset. Someone should do a study on lottery winners...
It has been pointed out to me - and rightly so - that the methodology for the Catalogue for Philanthropy's study is, well, a little suspect. Check out the Generosity Index Technical notes to see for yourself.
I looked at the technical notes prior to posting, noted how dubious the methods were (they would never have flown in any of my policy classes), but decided the final lesson (poor neighborhoods contribute more than wealthier ones) was worth posting about. Perhaps I should have noted my initial motivation for the post - and my skepticism of the study - before using it to buttress my point.
Apparently, Daily Kos has some conversation about the study, including some valid critiques, but that site just confuses me, so feel free to go find it yourself.
As a (relatively) experienced street canvasser, I feel as though I should weigh in on this subject. With some disclaimers:
1) My memory is for shit.
2) The ability to gauge one's relative wealth while street canvassing (as opposed to door-to-door) is difficult to impossible and borders on inappropriate.
That said, I get significantly more small contributions with cash (from people who care, but either don't have $15/mo to spare or are without checking acct/credit card) than big $40/mo. cons from a slick downtown suit.
Something to do with the culture of money and privelege? I tend to agree with Mark's "relative selflessness as inherited cultural trait" hypothesis.
In conclusion: sad.
Post a Comment