![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
December 2000 Fraser Forum:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
# of Donors |
Rank |
% of Income |
Rank |
Avg. Donation |
Rank |
|
|
Alabama |
22.9% |
45 |
3.51% |
5 |
3,643 |
9 |
|
Alaska |
17.9% |
53 |
2.02% |
48 |
2,731 |
29 |
|
Arizona |
28.6% |
20 |
2.82% |
24 |
2,547 |
39 |
|
Arkansas |
17.9% |
52 |
3.18% |
12 |
3,826 |
8 |
|
California |
31.0% |
12 |
3.00% |
16 |
2,831 |
26 |
|
Colorado |
31.0% |
11 |
2.92% |
19 |
2,708 |
32 |
|
Connecticut |
35.8% |
3 |
2.81% |
26 |
2,831 |
25 |
|
Delaware |
31.8% |
8 |
2.91% |
20 |
2,653 |
34 |
|
District of Columbia |
31.6% |
9 |
4.77% |
2 |
4,425 |
4 |
|
Florida |
21.2% |
50 |
2.93% |
18 |
3,633 |
10 |
|
Georgia |
28.5% |
22 |
3.57% |
4 |
3,333 |
13 |
|
Hawaii |
29.1% |
17 |
2.52% |
38 |
2,162 |
47 |
|
Idaho |
25.9% |
30 |
3.45% |
8 |
3,063 |
18 |
|
Illinois |
27.5% |
25 |
2.64% |
31 |
2,839 |
24 |
|
Indiana |
22.1% |
49 |
2.52% |
39 |
2,904 |
20 |
|
Iowa |
23.5% |
41 |
2.47% |
41 |
2,503 |
40 |
|
Kansas |
23.9% |
39 |
2.87% |
22 |
3,136 |
17 |
|
Kentucky |
23.3% |
42 |
2.65% |
29 |
2,631 |
36 |
|
Louisiana |
14.9% |
57 |
2.24% |
45 |
3,509 |
11 |
|
Maine |
24.2% |
38 |
2.20% |
46 |
2,040 |
49 |
|
Maryland |
40.1% |
1 |
3.51% |
6 |
2,721 |
30 |
|
Massachusetts |
33.3% |
6 |
2.61% |
33 |
2,495 |
41 |
|
Michigan |
28.8% |
19 |
2.81% |
25 |
2,687 |
33 |
|
Minnesota |
34.3% |
4 |
3.13% |
13 |
2,485 |
42 |
|
Mississippi |
16.0% |
55 |
3.02% |
14 |
3,870 |
7 |
|
Missouri |
22.7% |
47 |
2.63% |
32 |
2,899 |
21 |
|
Montana |
23.3% |
43 |
2.65% |
30 |
2,303 |
45 |
|
Nebraska |
23.0% |
44 |
2.90% |
21 |
3,011 |
19 |
|
Nevada |
26.0% |
29 |
2.57% |
35 |
2,777 |
28 |
|
New Hampshire |
27.9% |
24 |
1.86% |
50 |
1,982 |
51 |
|
New Jersey |
36.9% |
2 |
2.75% |
27 |
2,461 |
43 |
|
New Mexico |
19.3% |
51 |
2.38% |
44 |
2,613 |
37 |
|
New York |
34.0% |
5 |
3.73% |
3 |
3,292 |
14 |
|
North Carolina |
26.5% |
27 |
3.31% |
11 |
3,148 |
16 |
|
North Dakota |
14.7% |
58 |
1.91% |
49 |
2,714 |
31 |
|
Ohio |
25.1% |
33 |
2.50% |
40 |
2,451 |
44 |
|
Oklahoma |
22.9% |
46 |
3.37% |
10 |
3,345 |
12 |
|
Oregon |
30.2% |
15 |
2.96% |
17 |
2,563 |
38 |
|
Pennsylvania |
25.7% |
31 |
2.56% |
36 |
2,644 |
35 |
|
Rhode Island |
31.2% |
10 |
2.38% |
43 |
1,993 |
50 |
|
South Carolina |
24.4% |
35 |
3.40% |
9 |
3,226 |
15 |
|
South Dakota |
11.9% |
61 |
2.46% |
42 |
4,541 |
3 |
|
Tennessee |
16.4% |
54 |
2.84% |
23 |
4,342 |
5 |
|
Texas |
15.7% |
56 |
2.54% |
37 |
4,246 |
6 |
|
Utah |
33.0% |
7 |
6.80% |
1 |
5,266 |
2 |
|
Vermont |
24.5% |
34 |
2.16% |
47 |
2,061 |
48 |
|
Virginia |
30.7% |
13 |
3.02% |
15 |
2,824 |
27 |
|
Washington |
26.8% |
26 |
2.73% |
28 |
2,867 |
23 |
|
West Virginia |
12.2% |
60 |
1.62% |
51 |
2,874 |
22 |
|
Wisconsin |
29.6% |
16 |
2.58% |
34 |
2,199 |
46 |
|
Wyoming |
14.1% |
59 |
3.49% |
7 |
6,247 |
1 |
|
United States |
26.6% |
2.91% |
2,967 |
|||
|
British Columbia |
24.3% |
36 |
1.25% |
55 |
1033 |
53 |
|
Alberta |
26.3% |
28 |
0.98% |
60 |
1037 |
52 |
|
Saskatchewan |
28.6% |
21 |
1.32% |
54 |
915 |
55 |
|
Manitoba |
30.6% |
14 |
1.46% |
52 |
882 |
56 |
|
Ontario |
28.9% |
18 |
1.21% |
57 |
944 |
54 |
|
Quebec |
23.7% |
40 |
0.58% |
61 |
400 |
61 |
|
New Brunswick |
24.3% |
37 |
1.24% |
56 |
818 |
57 |
|
Nova Scotia |
25.4% |
32 |
1.17% |
58 |
719 |
58 |
|
Prince Edward Is. |
28.3% |
23 |
1.36% |
53 |
697 |
59 |
|
Newfoundland |
22.4% |
48 |
1.14% |
59 |
690 |
60 |
|
Canada |
26.4% |
1.07% |
822 |
|||
|
Sources: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin, Spring 1999. Prepared by the Center on Nonprofits & Philanthropy at the Urban Institute; Revenue Canada, Tax Statistics on Individuals, (1997 Tax Year), Interim Statistics, 1999. |
||||||
Unlike the previous measure of monetary generosity, with this measure there is a considerable difference between the aggregate performance of the two countries. Americans allotted 2.9 percent of income to charities in 1997 while Canadians donated 1.1 percent. Again, there is considerable variance between the Canadian provinces and US states.
Utah tops the list of jurisdictions with 6.8 percent of its income, adjusted for taxes, donated to charities. There is a considerable gap between Utah and the next two states: District of Columbia (4.8 percent) and New York (3.7 percent). West Virginia recorded the lowest percentage of income donated to charities (1.6 percent) for US states.
The Canadian provinces record a rather poor showing in this measure of monetary generosity. The top-ranked Canadian province was Manitoba, whose citizens donated 1.5 percent of their income to charities. Manitoba’s overall rank was 52nd. Utah, the top-ranked US state, allocated 4.5 times more income to charities than Manitoba.
In fact, every Canadian province ranked in the bottom quintile in terms of the percentage of income donated to charities. Worse still, Quebec, the lowest-ranked Canadian province with a mere 0.6 percent of income donated to charities, also achieved the dubious honour of recording the absolute lowest rank of any US state or Canadian province.
Like the previous measure of monetary generosity, the range among Canadian provinces in terms of income donated to charities (0.9 percentage points) was markedly smaller than the range recorded in the US (5.2 percentage points).
A seemingly contradictory trend continues to emerge in Canada wherein fewer people, as a percentage of taxpayers, are giving more money. That is, while the proportion of taxpayers who donate to charities is declining in Canada, the percentage of income they donate has consistently increased. Between 1996 and 1997, Manitoba experienced the largest increase (13.7 percent) in the percentage of income donated to charities, compared to a provincial average increase of 9.2 percent.
More startling are the increases recorded since 1990. On average, the provinces gave 21.0 percent more to charities as a percentage of income—led by British Columbia with a 36.0 percent increase.7
The US states experienced significantly larger increases than did the Canadian provinces, partly because the percentage of US taxpayers donating to charities is increasing rather than decreasing as is the case in Canada. On average, the percentage of income donated by the US states increased 56.3 percent between 1996 and 1997.
We also looked at the average charitable donation made in each jurisdiction. The calculation used to determine the average donation is different than the one used to determine the percentage of income donated, so the two are not readily comparable.
The results for the average donation mirror those garnered from the 1999 study. As in previous years, Alberta maintains the highest average charitable donation in Canada of Cdn $1,037, while Quebec records the lowest average donation of Cdn $400.
Similarly, citizens of Wyoming again give the highest average charitable donation in the US of US $6,247. The lowest-ranking US state, New Hampshire, records an average donation of US $1,982.
Once more, the Canadian provinces rank dead last, without exception, in terms of the average dollar value of charitable donations when compared with US states. Alberta, the highest-ranking Canadian province only ranks 52nd when compared with the US states. Worse still, the dollar values presented in table 1 are NOT adjusted for differences in national currencies: US donations are shown in US dollars and Canadian donations are shown in Canadian dollars. If either the US or Canadian data were translated into a common currency using either Purchasing Power Parity or the actual exchange rate, the differences between the US and Canada would be substantially greater.
A different and more accessible way to understand the data in table 1 is to create an index. Table 2 contains the specific index scores for both the percentage of taxpayers who donate to registered charities and the percentage of income they donate, as well as an overall aggregate index score. This index gives a straightforward method to evaluate the monetary generosity of Canadian provinces and US states.
Table 2: Index Scores—Canada & US
|
State/Province |
Index: |
Index: |
Aggregate |
|
|
1 |
Utah |
8.2 |
10.0 |
9.1 |
|
2 |
Maryland |
10.0 |
5.2 |
7.6 |
|
3 |
District of Columbia |
7.9 |
7.0 |
7.4 |
|
4 |
New York |
8.5 |
5.5 |
7.0 |
|
5 |
New Jersey |
9.2 |
4.0 |
6.6 |
|
6 |
Minnesota |
8.5 |
4.6 |
6.6 |
|
7 |
Connecticut |
8.9 |
4.1 |
6.5 |
|
8 |
Georgia |
7.1 |
5.2 |
6.2 |
|
9 |
Delaware |
7.9 |
4.3 |
6.1 |
|
10 |
California |
7.7 |
4.4 |
6.1 |
|
11 |
Massachusetts |
8.3 |
3.8 |
6.1 |
|
12 |
Virginia |
7.7 |
4.4 |
6.0 |
|
13 |
Colorado |
7.7 |
4.3 |
6.0 |
|
14 |
Oregon |
7.5 |
4.3 |
5.9 |
|
15 |
Idaho |
6.5 |
5.1 |
5.8 |
|
16 |
North Carolina |
6.6 |
4.9 |
5.7 |
|
17 |
Michigan |
7.2 |
4.1 |
5.7 |
|
18 |
Rhode Island |
7.8 |
3.5 |
5.6 |
|
19 |
Arizona |
7.1 |
4.1 |
5.6 |
|
20 |
Wisconsin |
7.4 |
3.8 |
5.6 |
|
21 |
South Carolina |
6.1 |
5.0 |
5.5 |
|
22 |
Hawaii |
7.3 |
3.7 |
5.5 |
|
23 |
Alabama |
5.7 |
5.2 |
5.4 |
|
24 |
Illinois |
6.9 |
3.9 |
5.4 |
|
25 |
Washington |
6.7 |
4.0 |
5.3 |
|
26 |
Oklahoma |
5.7 |
5.0 |
5.3 |
|
27 |
Nevada |
6.5 |
3.8 |
5.1 |
|
28 |
Kansas |
6.0 |
4.2 |
5.1 |
|
29 |
Pennsylvania |
6.4 |
3.8 |
5.1 |
|
30 |
Nebraska |
5.7 |
4.3 |
5.0 |
|
31 |
Ohio |
6.2 |
3.7 |
5.0 |
|
32 |
Manitoba |
7.6 |
2.1 |
4.9 |
|
33 |
Kentucky |
5.8 |
3.9 |
4.9 |
|
34 |
Montana |
5.8 |
3.9 |
4.8 |
|
35 |
New Hampshire |
6.9 |
2.7 |
4.8 |
|
36 |
Florida |
5.3 |
4.3 |
4.8 |
|
37 |
Missouri |
5.7 |
3.9 |
4.8 |
|
38 |
Iowa |
5.9 |
3.6 |
4.7 |
|
39 |
Vermont |
6.1 |
3.2 |
4.6 |
|
40 |
Maine |
6.0 |
3.2 |
4.6 |
|
41 |
Indiana |
5.5 |
3.7 |
4.6 |
|
42 |
Arkansas |
4.5 |
4.7 |
4.6 |
|
43 |
Saskatchewan |
7.1 |
1.9 |
4.5 |
|
44 |
Prince Edward Island |
7.0 |
2.0 |
4.5 |
|
45 |
Ontario |
7.2 |
1.8 |
4.5 |
|
46 |
Wyoming |
3.5 |
5.1 |
4.3 |
|
47 |
Mississippi |
4.0 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
|
48 |
New Mexico |
4.8 |
3.5 |
4.2 |
|
49 |
Tennessee |
4.1 |
4.2 |
4.1 |
|
50 |
Nova Scotia |
6.3 |
1.7 |
4.0 |
|
51 |
Alberta |
6.6 |
1.4 |
4.0 |
|
52 |
British Columbia |
6.1 |
1.8 |
3.9 |
|
53 |
New Brunswick |
6.0 |
1.8 |
3.9 |
|
54 |
Texas |
3.9 |
3.7 |
3.8 |
|
55 |
Alaska |
4.5 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
|
56 |
Newfoundland |
5.6 |
1.7 |
3.6 |
|
57 |
Louisiana |
3.7 |
3.3 |
3.5 |
|
58 |
Quebec |
5.9 |
0.9 |
3.4 |
|
59 |
South Dakota |
3.0 |
3.6 |
3.3 |
|
60 |
North Dakota |
3.7 |
2.8 |
3.2 |
|
61 |
West Virginia |
3.1 |
2.4 |
2.7 |
Like the 1999 results, the index calculation that combines the percentage of taxpayers donating to charities and the percentage of income donated to charities reveals a large gap between the top-ranked jurisdiction and the remaining provinces and states. Utah, with a score of 9.1 out of 10, significantly outperforms the second-ranked jurisdiction, Maryland, with a score of 7.6.
Manitoba achieves the highest rank of any Canadian province at 32nd with a score of 4.9. Three provinces tie for the next highest Canadian score (4.5) and rank (43rd): Saskatchewan, PEI, and Ontario. Unsurprisingly, Quebec has the lowest score (3.4) and rank (58th) of any Canadian province. In terms of the distribution of rankings, 1 Canadian province is in the third quintile, 3 are in the fourth quintile, and 6 are in the bottom quintile. No Canadian province scored high enough to place in either of the top two quintiles.
Although a more rigorous, time-based analysis is required of the charitable giving and generosity data, it seems clear that there are a number of variables influencing the level of charitable giving. For instance, we know from a variety of sources that demographics influence charitable giving. The distribution of age, sex, and occupations as well as educational attainment seems to have a minor effect on charitable giving, although again, more rigorous analysis is required to draw any definitive conclusions.
Economic variables, such as average income levels, unemployment, size of government, and tax burdens also seem to affect the results to varying degrees. Once more, these preliminary inferences are not definitive conclusions, but rather observations requiring greater research.
Finally, it is interesting to note the trend, repeated again, of both western and "have" provinces performing fairly well, while eastern and "have-not" provinces perform relatively poorly. It is also interesting to compare the trend noticed this year—when volunteering was excluded—to that of previous years when volunteering was included. The trend remains: western and "have" provinces perform relatively better, although the trend is not as strong without the volunteer factor.
Generally, people agree that the role and importance of charities and non-profit organizations in society is growing. As a consequence, it is important for us to understand how these organizations function.
This study’s data corroborates other research that indicates a worrisome trend in Canada; a declining percentage of total taxpayers donate to charities. On the other hand, those who do donate are donating more. The data also reveal the considerable gap between US states and Canadian provinces in terms of the amount donated to registered charities. Why do we see such stark differences? Only further research will provide a firm explanation.
Notes
1This article was originally intended to be a formal study (released as a Public Policy Source). There is, therefore, a considerable amount of information and data not presented in the article but which is readily available upon request. Contact the authors by e-mail at jasonc@fraserinstitute.ca.
2All registered charities are non-profits, but not all non-profits are
registered charities.
Registered charities are, therefore, a subset of
the larger non-profit sector. Receiving charitable status allows agencies
to issue tax-deductible receipts to donors and receive funding from registered
foundations. It also places them under the purview of Revenue Canada. Conversely,
non-profit organizations that do not receive charitable status are precluded
from issuing tax receipts and receiving monies from foundations, but neither
are they under the regulatory control of Revenue Canada.
3The Revenue Canada database, from which we extract data, has not been available for the past 2 years.
4Americans can file their income taxes as either itemized or non-itemized returns. Charitable contributions are only counted for those tax-filers submitting an itemized claim where specific deductions are made for charities. Thus, the number of Americans who actually donate to charities would be much higher if non-itemized returns were included.
5The Canadian provinces and US states were divided into 5 groups of equal size based on their performance in each of the variables. Each group is referred to as a quintile since each contains of the total number of jurisdictions.
6For a complete description and discussion of the methodology employed in making this adjustment, please see: 1999 Private Charitable Generosity Index, Public Policy Sources no. 34, available on the internet at www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/pps/34/.
7The trend of fewer people (as a percentage of total taxpayers) donating more in Canada continues beyond the 1997 data presented here. According to Statistics Canada, apart from a small deviation in 1998, 0.05 percent fewer people (as a proportion of taxpayers) donated to charity in 1999 than in the previous year. However, the value of those donations, even after adjusting for inflation, increased by 2.7 percent.
References
Clemens, J. and D. Samida (1999). "1999 Private Charitable Generosity Index." Public Policy Source #34. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute.
Fleenor, Patrick (1997). "Tax Freedom Day 1997 is May 9." No. 69. Washington, DC: Tax Foundation. April.
Internal Revenue Service (1999). IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin. Washington, DC. Spring.
Revenue Canada. Tax Statistics on Individuals. Ottawa, Ontario. Series: 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999.
Statistics Canada (1998). Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 1997 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Cat. #71-542-XIE. August.
Tax Foundation (2000). Calculations of Tax Burden and Net-National Product. Supplied to authors. Washington, DC: Tax Foundation.
Urban Institute (2000). Profiles of Individual Charitable Contributions by State, 1997. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Urban Institute (2000). Analysis of data from IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin. Supplied to authors via fax. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.