In the sections that follow, we will look at some recent data and compare giving by the rich to giving by all donors to see if Fitzgerald or Hemingway was right. To do that, we will use data about giving by High Net Worth households from 2014 US Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy and data on giving by all donors from Giving USA 2014 . /1.
It is important to note, however, that the two studies are not strictly equivalent. One includes only High Net Worth (HNW) households, defined as having $1 million of more in assets, excluding their primary home, or an annual household income of $200,000 or more. The other study includes all types of donors: Corporations, Foundations and Individual Donors at all income levels. Neither do all categories of recipient organizations used in the two studies entirely line up. Still, the two studies do appear to provide a generally reasonable basis for comparing giving by HNW households to the broader pool of American donors. To minimize difficulty, however, we will still limit our look to a few types of recipient organizations where the categories used in the two studies appear to be most equivalent. /2.
Arts – The
broader donor group was marginally more supportive of the arts than were the
HNW households. Giving USA reported that 5% of total US giving went to the arts
while the US Trust study reports that HNW households devoted 4% of their total
giving to the arts. This near
equivalence is interesting because it contrasts sharply with the longstanding
notion of Arts as an elite cause.
Education –
High net worth donors, however, were substantially more generous to Education
than was the broader group of donors.
The US Trust study reported that HNW households devoted 27% of their
total giving to Education in comparison to the 16% devoted to Education by all
donors as reported in Giving USA. This
finding comes as no surprise as education has long been considered to be a
cause that is especially appealing to the affluent.
Environment
and Animals – High net worth donors were also more supportive of these
causes than was the broader group of donors.
The US Trust study reported that HNW households devoted 5% their total
giving to the Environment and 1% to Animals (6% total) in comparison to the 4%
devoted to Animals and Environment by the broader group of donors as reported
in Giving USA.
Health – The
broader group of donors, however, was more generous to health causes than were
the HNW households. Giving USA reported that 10% of total US giving went to
Health causes while the US Trust study reports that HNW households devoted 3%
of their total giving to Health causes. This is perhaps not surprising given
the amounts raised through broad-based efforts by the national charities
focused on particular diseases.
International –
International causes were also more appealing to the broader group of donors
than to the HNW households. Giving USA reported that 3% of total US giving went
to International causes while the US Trust study reports that HNW households
devoted 1% of their total giving to International causes. Given the large amount of funds raised by the
mass-market international relief and development charities, this, too, comes as
little surprise.
Religion – The
broader group of donors was clearly more generous to religious causes than were
the HNW households. Giving USA reported
that 31% of total US giving went to religious causes while the US Trust study
reports that HNW households devoted only 12% of their total giving to religious
causes. With corporations and foundations providing very little money to
religious causes, this may actually give us a close to “apples to apples” look at
how HNM households differ in their giving pattern from the broader population
of individual donors.
So, who is right, Fitzgerald or Hemingway?
In the six areas examined, the HNW households and the broader donor
group demonstrated different preferences in the causes they supported. In three areas; Education, Health and
Religion, differences were large. In the
others, differences, though smaller, were still noticeable. So, at least in terms of the causes to which
they give, Fitzgerald appears to have been right; the rich really do seem to be
different from the rest of us in ways that go beyond simply having more money.
NOTES:
1.
Formally, the first study is the “2014 US Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy which is conducted
in partnership with the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy”
while the second is “Giving USA 2014 which
is researched and written by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.”
2.
Comparisons were not drawn in several other areas of giving
because it was unclear as to how the US Trust and Giving USA categories lined up. US Trust categories for which the data was
not used include: Other, Combination, Youth Family, Basic Needs and Giving
Vehicles. Data for the following Giving
USA categories was not used: Human Services, Public-society Benefit,
Foundations, and Individuals.
