News >
In tight-fisted New England, Maine's generosity stands out
By Jerry Harkavy, Associated Press Writer | November 20, 2005
PORTLAND, Maine --Tight-fisted New Englanders traditionally rank at the
bottom in an annual index of charitable giving and this year was no
exception. But upper-income Mainers stood out as paragons of generosity.
New Hampshire was the most miserly state for the fourth year running and
the seventh year in the past nine, according to the Catalogue of
Philanthropy. Massachusetts was runner-up in parsimony and Rhode Island
and Connecticut also were among the half-dozen stingiest.
Mississippi retained its title as most generous state, one of several in
the Bible Belt that ranked high in the latest Generosity Index, whose
methodology has come under criticism and helped give rise to new studies
of charitable giving.
The index, which takes into account both "having" and "giving," is based
on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized charitable
donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service on 2003 tax returns,
the latest available.
"We believe that generosity is a function of how much one gives to the
ability one has to give," said Martin Cohn, a spokesman for the
Catalogue for Philanthropy, a Boston-based nonprofit that publishes a
directory of nonprofit organizations.
Using that standard, the 10 most generous states were, in descending
order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.
The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut,
Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan.
The latest Generosity Index mirrors the results of the 2004 presidential
election and the breakdown between so-called "red" and "blue" states.
The 25 most generous states all voted for President Bush; 11 of the 12
stingiest wound up in John Kerry's column.
Mississippi, the poorest state with an average income of $34,720, had
average contributions of $4,470, the nation's sixth highest. In New
Hampshire, by contrast, incomes averaged $50,952 and contributions
$2,607. For the nation as a whole, the corresponding figures were
$47,401 and $3,455.
Nevada had the biggest jump in the rankings, from 40th to 28th. Illinois
had the sharpest decline, from 31st to 40th.
Maine moved from 32th to 30th, thanks to its improvement in a subset of
rankings that weigh the giving-to-having practices of each state's
wealthiest residents -- those reporting incomes of $200,000 or more.
Maine had been 27th on that list last year but soared to seventh in the
latest rankings.
Leaders of Maine's philanthropic community suggest that well-publicized
campaigns to preserve environmentally significant portions of the
state's northern forests may explain the increase in contributions from
the state's well-heeled residents.
"I think that's a possible explanation, but it would be hard to document
because many of those gifts are made over a long period, like five
years," said Mason Morfit of the Nature Conservancy's Maine chapter.
With several land preservation campaigns being conducted in Maine at the
time, "my sense is that there was a major increase in substantial gifts
during that period," Morfit said.
Because Maine has a relatively small number of residents with incomes in
the $200,000-plus range, several people making large gifts could cause a
sharp jump in the state's generosity ranking in that income group, said
Janet Henry, president of the Maine Philanthropy Center.
Skepticism about the Generosity Index prompted one of the nation's
oldest and largest community foundations to sponsor a study designed to
counteract what it saw as a built-in bias against high-income states
such as Massachusetts and in favor of low-income states like
Mississippi.
The Boston Foundation study concluded that the index presents an
undeserved image of New England as a region comprised of Yankee
skinflints whose charitable instincts are out of sync with the rest of
the nation.
"If everyone in Massachusetts gave 100 times as much to charity as we do
today and everything else remains the same, we wouldn't get above the
bottom half of the chart," said David Trueblood, a spokesman for the
foundation. "And no matter what Mississippi did, it couldn't fall below
22nd or 23rd."
The Boston Foundation proposed an alternate measure of generosity based
on each state's share of overall charitable contributions and income,
adjusted for differences in taxes and living costs. Using that
methodology, Massachusetts' generosity ranking last year would be
eleventh, instead of 49th.
Another new study, conducted by The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana
University on behalf of a group of New England sponsors, also boosts the
case for residents of the six-state region being less than Scrooge-like.
The study, which supplements IRS data with a survey of representative
households, found that individuals in New England give less, on average,
to charity than those in other regions, but the percentage of New
Englanders who do contribute is higher than the national average. It
also found that contributors in New England tend to favor secular,
rather than religious, causes.
Cohn said he was disappointed that the Boston Foundation chose to attack
the index without understanding that its purpose is to promote
discussion about philanthropy and that it never sought to hang a label
on any state.
"Our numbers were never purported to be scientific," Cohn said. "Our
goal is not to make anybody feel good or feel bad."
Trueblood and Henry agree on the need to avoid finger-pointing. They
expressed a desire to move the discussion away from rankings and toward
ways to get people to be more generous.
"The rankings get people's attention, but that's not enough," Henry
said. "We need to have conversations about the meaning of giving and the
impact of giving."
------
On the Net:
Catalogue for Philanthropy: http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org
The Boston Foundation: http://www.bostonfoundation.org
Maine Philanthropy Center: http://www.mainephilanthropy.org
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
