Charitable Giving Trends in the U.S.

undefined
 
Fairfield Senior Center
 
OCTOBER 13, 2015
 
Topics Covered During the Next Six
Weeks
 
Week 1 (Today)
 
The State of Giving in the U.S.
Week 2
  
Why People Give
Week 3
  
Giving in the U.S. versus Philanthropy Overseas
Week 4
  
Government Spending and Charitable Giving (Crowding
   
Out or Crowding In)
Week 5
  
Corruption in the Nonprofit Sector – Nonprofit
   
Malfeasance
Week 6
  
The New Philanthropy and the Principal-Agent Problem
 
 
 
 
To Get Copy of Slides
 
 
Go to:
 
www.faculty.fairfield.edu/mleclair
 
Click on link that says Fairfield Senior Center
 
Week 1 – Giving in the U.S.
 
U.S. by far the most generous country in terms of
giving per capita
Reflection of both higher income and tradition of philanthropy
Protestant ethic of taking care of neighbor(s)
Giving was up close and personal
Also, as will be argued in a later presentation, much of what was
once philanthropy is now in the public sector in other developed
nations
 
Historical Statistics
 
 
Current Statistics
 
 
2014 Charitable Giving by Source:
Individual giving, $258.51 billion, increased 5.7 percent in current dollars over
2013.
Foundation giving, $53.97 billion, was 8.2 percent higher than 2013
Bequest giving, $28.13 billion, increased 15.5 percent 2013
Corporate giving, $17.77 billion, increased 13.7 percent over 2013 giving
Source:  
Giving USA
 
Numbers Reflect a General Trend
 
Foundation and bequest giving is rising at a faster
pace than individual giving
Represents rapid accumulation of wealth
May influence overall patterns of giving in the future
For now, individual giving dominates
 
Where does money go?
 
 
Religion
—$114.90 billion, 2014 giving increased 2.5 percent higher
 
Education
—giving increased to $54.62 billion, 4.9 higher
 
Human Services
—$42.10 billion total was 3.6 percent higher
 
Health—
$30.37 billion 2014 estimate was 5.5 percent higher than the
prior year
 
Arts/Culture/Humanities
—$17.23 billion, growth of 9.2
 
Others
 
 
Environment/Animals
—The $10.50 billion estimate for 2014 was up
7.0 percent
Public-Society Benefit
—the $26.29 billion estimate for 2014
increased 5.1 percent
International Affairs -- 
$15.10 billion estimate for 2014 decreased
2.0 percent, in current dollars, from 2013. The drop was 3.6 percent
when adjusted for inflation.
 
What about corporate giving?
 
 
Why do businesses give?
Provides a company with an enlightened image
Particularly businesses that may not be viewed favorably by the public
Petroleum business, tobacco, etc.
Improves work satisfaction among employees
Retention may improve
Firms may donate to causes that help train needed labor
Interest of a top executive might also be a driver
 
Result-Business Giving Looks Very Different
from Personal Giving – Largest Participants
 
 
1.
 
Novartis Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 
 
$452,981,816 
 
12/31/2013
 
2.
 
Wells Fargo Foundation (CA) 
   
186,775,875 
 
12/31/2013
 
3.
 
The Wal-Mart Foundation, Inc. (AR) 
  
182,859,236 
 
01/31/2013
 
4.
 
The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. 
 
160,479,886 
 
12/31/2013
 
5.
 
The JPMorgan Chase Foundation (NY) 
  
115,516,001 
 
12/31/2012
 
6.
 
GE Foundation (CT) 
    
124,512,065 
 
12/31/2013
 
7.
 
The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc. (GA) 
  
  98,175,501 
 
12/31/2013
 
8.
 
Citi Foundation (NY) 
    
  78,372,150 
 
12/31/2013
 
Direction of giving for Corporate
Programs
 
 
Main Destinations were:
Education (29%)
Health (25%)
Community Investment (15%)
 
Mechanism of Giving
 
 
Corporate Foundations (34%)
 
Direct Giving (49%)
 
In-Kind (17%)
 
Last category a reflection of drug companies that
donate medicines to poorer Americans and to overseas
initiatives
 
Tax Treatment and Total Giving
 
Tax Incentives are a significant driver of giving for those in
the upper-income brackets
Less, however, than many people assume
The standard deduction for a couple filing jointly in now in
the range of $12,500.
Outside of high-tax, high-property price, Connecticut, you may
not reach that by itemizing
Tax breaks not a consideration when giving
 
In much of Europe
 
Tax breaks are available only for specific donations
(as in Italy)
Another reflection of the subsidiary role played by
the charitable sector as opposed to government
social spending
Discussion is brought up periodically in the U.S.
(removal of tax breaks)
 
 
Corporate Deduction
 
5% of Income – Provides some incentive to give, but the
prime motivator is still need to demonstrate enlightened
nature of business
This deduction was opposed by many when instituted,
given the motives and nature of corporate giving
 
Uniqueness of U.S. Situation also
Reflected in the Mechanisms of Giving
 
Charity Aggregators (United Way)
Giving through the workplace (and matching programs)
More recent phenomena:
Crowdfunding
Social Pressure Websites (Hungersite.com)
Giving through investing (Impact Investment)
 
Immigration and Economic Development
 
Political battle in Washington just beginning
Support for more open borders coming from strange
bedfellows
The Democratic Party and the Chamber of Commerce
(usually regarded as Republican-leaning)
Democrats see a means by which to build up a
constituency that is fairly loyal (Hispanics, Asians)
 
Chamber of Commerce?
 
Conservatives argue that business interests want a
growing pool of cheap labor
Somewhat confusing argument in an economy that has
such a slack labor market
Not sure where corporations are having a hard time
hiring, except in high-skill occupations
 
Benefits and Costs of Immigration
 
Skilled immigrant labor highly beneficial to economy
Captured endowed human capital in worker
Special programs over the years for nurses and workers
with other specialized skill sets
Unskilled labor more problematic
Immigrants perform work that U.S. citizens are unlikely
to seek out
 
Industries with high concentrations of
unauthorized workers
 
Most obvious is farming
Also see employment in:
Construction (roofing!)
Packing
Painting
Landscaping
 
Benefits
 
Avoid  labor shortages common in Europe
Labor market more flexible
Humanitarian benefits
 
Costs
 
Evidence of wage suppression @ lower end of market
Cost is borne by those at lower end of labor market
Social and monetary costs of absorbing millions of
individuals
No discussion of limits of market to absorb new labor
California may have reached that limit already
Victor David Hanson’s writings
 
 
Undermines existing immigration system
 
Difficult to tell people they must go through a multi-
year process to achieve legal status when millions are
simply entering and staying
A well thought-out guest worker program might have
been a better way to go
Path taken by Germany with Turkish guest workers
Although social problems have arisen in Germany also
 
Week 2 – Why People Give
 
Philanthropy is driven by a variety of Motives
Some self-interested
Reasons for giving partially determines patterns of
giving
Also provides some insights into how charities should
approach donors
 
 
Commonly Discussed Motives
 
Altruism/Obligation
Warm Glow of Giving (What would Kant Say about
this?)
Social Stature
Self-interest – primary motivation for corporate
giving
 
Altruism and Securing Donations
 
Charities use sympathetic message to raise donations
May also draw some “bad apples” into certain
segments of charitable sector
Charities use key words that elicit a response:
Police, fire, veterans, kids, cancer
Those that truly give altruistically may get burned if they
don’t investigate a charity’s history
 
Look More Closely at 2 of The other
motives for giving
 
Social Stature
Giving is a form of social signaling
People who give receive societal respect in return
This motive drives people to give to causes that are physically
apparent – e.g. a hospital wing or a college building
May cause a form of competitive giving among elites
 
Self Interest as a motivator
 
Most obvious example is corporate giving
Businesses may give up to 5% of income in any given year and
deduct it from earnings
Might be driven by philanthropic interests of executives
In literature, regarded as a means of advertising the firm as a good
citizen to increase sales and profits
Donations to the arts, for instance, make a firm appear enlightened
 
Danger Lurks Nearby
 
Donations to controversial causes may damage
business
Corporate giving programs gravitate to “everyone
supports that” causes
Away from the NRA and Planned Parenthood
Research shows that firms that want an enlightened image
give to the arts, while manufacturing firms may donate to
educational causes that improve the labor force they draw
from
 
Example
 
 
LeClair, M. and Gordon, K. (2000), “Corporate Support for
Artistic and Cultural Activities: What Determines the
Distribution of Corporate Giving?, Journal of Cultural
Economics, 24
 
More Recent is the Advent of the “Ethical
Lifestyle”
 
Philanthropy (or social action) is part of
everyday life
Consumption
Avoid products from firms that are regarded by some
as morally challenged
Large problem for Walmart for many years
Portrayed in book “Nickeled and Dimed” by Barbara
Ehrenreich
 
 
Direct consumption towards firm that are socially
responsible
Then, seek out consumption products with
embedded philanthropic content
Fair Trade Products, Products that have a
complementary charitable component
Girl Scout cookies, Newman’s Own products. And “buy this
product and one dollar goes to breast cancer research”
promotions
 
When it Comes to Investing…….
 
First, engage in 
Socially Responsible Investing
From the liberal perspective: No oil companies, no
firearms manufacturers, no tobacco companies, etc.
Could come from a conservative perspective:
Avoiding media that conservatives consider biased,
for example
In general, most SRI arises from the liberal
perspective
 
Examples
 
 
Socially Responsible Funds
 
These Funds 
Necessarily
 Provide a Lower
Long-Term Rate of Return
 
Basic Economic Theory: Constrained Optimization
Lower than Unconstrained
SRI portfolios do not hold the whole “universe” of
stocks
If socially-responsible investing provided a higher rate
of return (adjusted for risk), then traditional funds
would switch to these stocks
 
For those that Truly Want to Invest
Ethically
 
Impact Investing
Funds pursue a social goal as their purpose
Sustainable Trade (e.g. Fair Trade)
Low-Income Housing (South America)
Clean Energy Access (Rural India)
Active Programs within U.S. urbans centers
 
Exaggerated Claims Made About Returns
 
Rates of return are significant for some Impact Funds
Risk, however, is very high
Unlikely risk-adjusted rate of return is remarkable
Continuing argument made above, if Impact
Investing created extranormal returns, then
conventional funds would rapidly switch investments
in this direction
 
Investors Compensated with Warm-Glow
of Engaging in Philanthropy
 
Upper-income individuals may continue to donate, even if
returns are lower
Raises concern (once again) that Impact Investing (like Fair
Trade) is simply an arena for the well-off
 (a niche)
Growth in Impact Investing has been slow, primarily due to
inability to explain mechanism to potential investors
 
Questions
 
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Explore the trends and statistics of charitable giving in the U.S., covering topics such as individual giving, foundation contributions, bequest giving, corporate donations, and where the money flows. Delve into historical and current statistics to understand the factors influencing philanthropy in different sectors.

  • Charitable giving
  • Philanthropy trends
  • U.S. donations
  • Nonprofit sector
  • Giving statistics

Uploaded on Sep 06, 2024 | 1 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Fairfield Senior Center OCTOBER 13, 2015

  2. Topics Covered During the Next Six Weeks Week 1 (Today) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 The State of Giving in the U.S. Why People Give Giving in the U.S. versus Philanthropy Overseas Government Spending and Charitable Giving (Crowding Out or Crowding In) Week 5 Corruption in the Nonprofit Sector Nonprofit Malfeasance Week 6 The New Philanthropy and the Principal-Agent Problem

  3. To Get Copy of Slides Go to: www.faculty.fairfield.edu/mleclair Click on link that says Fairfield Senior Center

  4. Week 1 Giving in the U.S. U.S. by far the most generous country in terms of giving per capita Reflection of both higher income and tradition of philanthropy Protestant ethic of taking care of neighbor(s) Giving was up close and personal Also, as will be argued in a later presentation, much of what was once philanthropy is now in the public sector in other developed nations

  5. Historical Statistics

  6. Current Statistics 2014 Charitable Giving by Source: Individual giving, $258.51 billion, increased 5.7 percent in current dollars over 2013. Foundation giving, $53.97 billion, was 8.2 percent higher than 2013 Bequest giving, $28.13 billion, increased 15.5 percent 2013 Corporate giving, $17.77 billion, increased 13.7 percent over 2013 giving Source: Giving USA

  7. Numbers Reflect a General Trend Foundation and bequest giving is rising at a faster pace than individual giving Represents rapid accumulation of wealth May influence overall patterns of giving in the future For now, individual giving dominates

  8. Where does money go? Religion $114.90 billion, 2014 giving increased 2.5 percent higher Education giving increased to $54.62 billion, 4.9 higher Human Services $42.10 billion total was 3.6 percent higher Health $30.37 billion 2014 estimate was 5.5 percent higher than the prior year Arts/Culture/Humanities $17.23 billion, growth of 9.2

  9. Others Environment/Animals The $10.50 billion estimate for 2014 was up 7.0 percent Public-Society Benefit the $26.29 billion estimate for 2014 increased 5.1 percent International Affairs -- $15.10 billion estimate for 2014 decreased 2.0 percent, in current dollars, from 2013. The drop was 3.6 percent when adjusted for inflation.

  10. What about corporate giving? Why do businesses give? Provides a company with an enlightened image Particularly businesses that may not be viewed favorably by the public Petroleum business, tobacco, etc. Improves work satisfaction among employees Retention may improve Firms may donate to causes that help train needed labor Interest of a top executive might also be a driver

  11. Result-Business Giving Looks Very Different from Personal Giving Largest Participants 1. Novartis Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) $452,981,816 12/31/2013 2. Wells Fargo Foundation (CA) 186,775,875 12/31/2013 3. The Wal-Mart Foundation, Inc. (AR) 182,859,236 01/31/2013 4. The Bank of America Charitable Foundation, Inc. 160,479,886 12/31/2013 5. The JPMorgan Chase Foundation (NY) 115,516,001 12/31/2012 6. GE Foundation (CT) 124,512,065 12/31/2013 7. The Coca-Cola Foundation, Inc. (GA) 98,175,501 12/31/2013 8. Citi Foundation (NY) 78,372,150 12/31/2013

  12. Direction of giving for Corporate Programs Main Destinations were: Education (29%) Health (25%) Community Investment (15%)

  13. Mechanism of Giving Corporate Foundations (34%) Direct Giving (49%) In-Kind (17%) Last category a reflection of drug companies that donate medicines to poorer Americans and to overseas initiatives

  14. Tax Treatment and Total Giving Tax Incentives are a significant driver of giving for those in the upper-income brackets Less, however, than many people assume The standard deduction for a couple filing jointly in now in the range of $12,500. Outside of high-tax, high-property price, Connecticut, you may not reach that by itemizing Tax breaks not a consideration when giving

  15. In much of Europe Tax breaks are available only for specific donations (as in Italy) Another reflection of the subsidiary role played by the charitable sector as opposed to government social spending Discussion is brought up periodically in the U.S. (removal of tax breaks)

  16. Corporate Deduction 5% of Income Provides some incentive to give, but the prime motivator is still need to demonstrate enlightened nature of business This deduction was opposed by many when instituted, given the motives and nature of corporate giving

  17. Uniqueness of U.S. Situation also Reflected in the Mechanisms of Giving Charity Aggregators (United Way) Giving through the workplace (and matching programs) More recent phenomena: Crowdfunding Social Pressure Websites (Hungersite.com) Giving through investing (Impact Investment)

  18. Immigration and Economic Development Political battle in Washington just beginning Support for more open borders coming from strange bedfellows The Democratic Party and the Chamber of Commerce (usually regarded as Republican-leaning) Democrats see a means by which to build up a constituency that is fairly loyal (Hispanics, Asians)

  19. Chamber of Commerce? Conservatives argue that business interests want a growing pool of cheap labor Somewhat confusing argument in an economy that has such a slack labor market Not sure where corporations are having a hard time hiring, except in high-skill occupations

  20. Benefits and Costs of Immigration Skilled immigrant labor highly beneficial to economy Captured endowed human capital in worker Special programs over the years for nurses and workers with other specialized skill sets Unskilled labor more problematic Immigrants perform work that U.S. citizens are unlikely to seek out

  21. Industries with high concentrations of unauthorized workers Most obvious is farming Also see employment in: Construction (roofing!) Packing Painting Landscaping

  22. Benefits Avoid labor shortages common in Europe Labor market more flexible Humanitarian benefits

  23. Costs Evidence of wage suppression @ lower end of market Cost is borne by those at lower end of labor market Social and monetary costs of absorbing millions of individuals No discussion of limits of market to absorb new labor California may have reached that limit already Victor David Hanson s writings

  24. Undermines existing immigration system Difficult to tell people they must go through a multi- year process to achieve legal status when millions are simply entering and staying A well thought-out guest worker program might have been a better way to go Path taken by Germany with Turkish guest workers Although social problems have arisen in Germany also

  25. Week 2 Why People Give Philanthropy is driven by a variety of Motives Some self-interested Reasons for giving partially determines patterns of giving Also provides some insights into how charities should approach donors

  26. Commonly Discussed Motives Altruism/Obligation Warm Glow of Giving (What would Kant Say about this?) Social Stature Self-interest primary motivation for corporate giving

  27. Altruism and Securing Donations Charities use sympathetic message to raise donations May also draw some bad apples into certain segments of charitable sector Charities use key words that elicit a response: Police, fire, veterans, kids, cancer Those that truly give altruistically may get burned if they don t investigate a charity s history

  28. Look More Closely at 2 of The other motives for giving Social Stature Giving is a form of social signaling People who give receive societal respect in return This motive drives people to give to causes that are physically apparent e.g. a hospital wing or a college building May cause a form of competitive giving among elites

  29. Self Interest as a motivator Most obvious example is corporate giving Businesses may give up to 5% of income in any given year and deduct it from earnings Might be driven by philanthropic interests of executives In literature, regarded as a means of advertising the firm as a good citizen to increase sales and profits Donations to the arts, for instance, make a firm appear enlightened

  30. Danger Lurks Nearby Donations to controversial causes may damage business Corporate giving programs gravitate to everyone supports that causes Away from the NRA and Planned Parenthood Research shows that firms that want an enlightened image give to the arts, while manufacturing firms may donate to educational causes that improve the labor force they draw from

  31. Example LeClair, M. and Gordon, K. (2000), Corporate Support for Artistic and Cultural Activities: What Determines the Distribution of Corporate Giving?, Journal of Cultural Economics, 24

  32. More Recent is the Advent of the Ethical Lifestyle Philanthropy (or social action) is part of everyday life Consumption Avoid products from firms that are regarded by some as morally challenged Large problem for Walmart for many years Portrayed in book Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

  33. Direct consumption towards firm that are socially responsible Then, seek out consumption products with embedded philanthropic content Fair Trade Products, Products that have a complementary charitable component Girl Scout cookies, Newman s Own products. And buy this product and one dollar goes to breast cancer research promotions

  34. When it Comes to Investing. First, engage in Socially Responsible Investing From the liberal perspective: No oil companies, no firearms manufacturers, no tobacco companies, etc. Could come from a conservative perspective: Avoiding media that conservatives consider biased, for example In general, most SRI arises from the liberal perspective

  35. Examples Socially Responsible Funds

  36. These Funds Necessarily Provide a Lower Long-Term Rate of Return Basic Economic Theory: Constrained Optimization Lower than Unconstrained SRI portfolios do not hold the whole universe of stocks If socially-responsible investing provided a higher rate of return (adjusted for risk), then traditional funds would switch to these stocks

  37. For those that Truly Want to Invest Ethically Impact Investing Funds pursue a social goal as their purpose Sustainable Trade (e.g. Fair Trade) Low-Income Housing (South America) Clean Energy Access (Rural India) Active Programs within U.S. urbans centers

  38. Exaggerated Claims Made About Returns Rates of return are significant for some Impact Funds Risk, however, is very high Unlikely risk-adjusted rate of return is remarkable Continuing argument made above, if Impact Investing created extranormal returns, then conventional funds would rapidly switch investments in this direction

  39. Investors Compensated with Warm-Glow of Engaging in Philanthropy Upper-income individuals may continue to donate, even if returns are lower Raises concern (once again) that Impact Investing (like Fair Trade) is simply an arena for the well-off (a niche) Growth in Impact Investing has been slow, primarily due to inability to explain mechanism to potential investors

  40. Questions

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#