final report for the 2010 survey on charitable giving in ... report for... · final report for the...

This report is for the internal use of Center for Strategic Economic Research (CSER) and its clients. Any reproduction or dissemination of this document or information contained within, without the written consent of CSER and the Institute or the Social Research (ISR) is prohibited.

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Prepared for the Center for Strategic Economic Research by the Institute for Social Research at California State University, Sacramento February 2011 Ernest L. Cowles, Ph.D., Director and Professor of Sociology Jessica Hayes, M.A. Research Analyst Sandra Sutherland Research Specialist with Theodore Ryan Graduate Research Assistant Dana Grossi Graduate Research Assistant

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page ii

Contents Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... v

Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................ vii

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1

Section 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 5

Sample Design .................................................................................................................. 5

Instrument Design ............................................................................................................. 6

Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 7

Response Rate .................................................................................................................. 7

Representativeness of the Sample ................................................................................... 8

Precision of Estimates ....................................................................................................... 9

Demographic Variables for Bivariate Analysis ................................................................. 9

Outlier Donation Amounts ............................................................................................... 10

Report Organization ........................................................................................................ 11

Section 2: Participation in Giving ........................................................................................... 12

Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient............................................... 15

Participation in Giving by Demographic Characteristics .................................................... 16

Section 3: Motivations for Giving ............................................................................................ 34

Motivations by Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................... 35

Section 4: Destination of Giving ............................................................................................. 44

Destination of Donation by Demographic Characteristics ................................................. 45

Section 5: Method of Giving ................................................................................................... 50

Method of Giving by Demographic Characteristics ............................................................ 51

Section 6: Sources of Information .......................................................................................... 56

Sources of Information by Demographic Characteristics .................................................. 57

Section 7: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More.............................................................. 60

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Demographic Characteristics ...................... 61

Section 8: Comparisons of Previous, Current, and Future Giving ........................................ 64

Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Demographic Characteristics .. 65

Section 9: Trust in Charitable Organizations ......................................................................... 68

Trust in Charitable Organizations by Demographic Characteristics .................................. 71

Section 10: Non-Donors ......................................................................................................... 79

Previous Donations by Demographic Characteristics........................................................ 80

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page iii

Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Demographic Characteristics ............... 82

Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Demographic Characteristics.......... 84

Section 11: Planned Giving .................................................................................................... 86

Planned Giving by Demographic Characteristics............................................................... 87

Section 12: Funding Social Programs .................................................................................... 90

Funding Social Programs by Demographic Characteristics .............................................. 91

Section 13: Analysis of Age and Income Oversamples......................................................... 94

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in the Age Oversample ............................ 94

Subgroup Analysis by Age.................................................................................................. 97

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in the Income Oversample..................... 105

Subgroup Analysis by Household Income ....................................................................... 108

Section 14: Analysis of New Wealth Area Households ....................................................... 116

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in the New Wealth Areas ....................... 116

Age and Income for the Three Targeted Samples ........................................................... 119

Charitable Giving Behaviors of New Wealth Area Households ....................................... 120

Section 15: Potential Impact of Population Trends.............................................................. 129

Projected Age Distribution of Sacramento Region .......................................................... 129

Projected Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Sacramento Region ......................................... 130

Projected Educational Attainment Distribution of Sacramento Region ........................... 130

Projected Household Income Distribution of Sacramento Region .................................. 131

Section 16: Comparison with Other Geographical Areas .................................................... 132

Comparisons with National Giving Rates and Donation Amounts .................................. 132

Comparisons with National Giving Rates and Donation Amounts for Age, Income, and Educational Attainment................................................................................ 133

Comparisons with National Giving Rates and Donation Amounts by Type of Organization .................................................................................................................. 136

Comparisons with the Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient in Other Geographic Areas............................................................................... 139

Alternate Comparison Using Giving USA 2010 Data on Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient .............................................................. 140

Limitations of Giving USA 2010 Data on Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient .................................................................................. 140

Comparison of Motivations for Giving .............................................................................. 142

Comparison of Giving Destinations .................................................................................. 143

Comparison of Sources of Information about Charities ................................................... 144

Comparison of Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More to Charities ............................. 145

Comparisons of Trust in Charitable Organizations .......................................................... 146

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page iv

Comparison of Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving ...................................................... 148

Comparison of Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving .................................... 149

Comparisons of Planned Giving ....................................................................................... 150

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................ 151

Survey Instrument ............................................................................................................. 151

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................ 177

Weighted Frequencies for all Survey Questions .............................................................. 177

Weighted Frequencies for Demographic Characteristics ................................................ 186

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................... 188

Mean Dollar Amounts by Type of Organizations (with Outliers) ...................................... 189

Responses to Other Categories ....................................................................................... 191

Motivations for Giving ....................................................................................................... 197

Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving More in 2009 ................................................................ 202

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page v

Table of Figures Figure 1: Giving Rates and Mean Contributions per Donor Household, Sacramento Region 2009 .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2: Percent of Donor Households Giving and Mean Contributions per Donor Household by Type of Recipient Organization, Sacramento Region 2009 .............................................. 13

Figure 3: Distribution of Donations by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region 2009 ............................... 15

Figure 4: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Age, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 5: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Gender, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 6: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Household Income, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 7: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Educational Attainment, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 8: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Race/Ethnicity, Sacramento Region 2009 .......................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Employment Status, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 10: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Church Attendance, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 11: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Religious Preference, Sacramento Region 2009 ...................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 12: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations................................................................. 34

Figure 13: Average Percentage of Donation by Destination .................................................................... 44

Figure 14: Importance of Donation to Local Organizations ..................................................................... 44

Figure 15: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations ........................................................................ 50

Figure 16: Sources of Information about Charitable Organizations ......................................................... 56

Figure 17: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More ............................................................................... 60

Figure 18: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving ............................................................ 64

Figure 19: Perception of How Charitable Organizations Run Programs and Spend Money ..................... 68

Figure 20: Confidence in Charitable Organizations................................................................................. 69

Figure 21: Local Trust in Charities Compared to National Trust .............................................................. 69

Figure 22: Perception of Ethics of Local Charities .................................................................................. 70

Figure 23: Does Trust in Charities Influence Giving ................................................................................ 70

Figure 24: How Does Trust Influence Giving .......................................................................................... 71

Figure 25: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 ....................................... 79

Figure 26: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 ........................................................................ 79

Figure 27: Factors that Prevent Non-Donors from Giving ....................................................................... 80

Figure 28: Planned Giving ..................................................................................................................... 86

Figure 29: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs ................................................................. 90

Figure 30: Comparison of Age and Income for Respondents in the Sacramento Region, New Wealth, Age and Income Oversamples ........................................................................... 119

Figure 31: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006 ................................................................................................................. 132

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page vi

Figure 32: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household by Age, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006 ............................................................................................. 133

Figure 33: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household by Income, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006 ............................................................................................. 134

Figure 34: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household by Educational Attainment, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006.......................................................................... 135

Figure 35: Giving Rates and Mean Donation per Donor Household by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006 ............................................................................................ 136

Figure 36: Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and U.S. Donor Households .................................................................. 139

Figure 37: Distribution of Donations by Type of Recipient for the Sacramento Region and the U.S. ............................................................................................................................ 140

Figure 38: Motivations for Giving, Sacramento Region , Kansas City, Indianapolis and Atlanta .......................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 39: Giving Destinations for Sacramento Region, Atlanta, Kansas City, and Indiana ................... 143

Figure 40: Sources of Information, Sacramento Region and Minnesota ................................................ 144

Figure 41: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More, Sacramento Region and Boulder County ............. 145

Figure 42: Perceptions of How Good a Job Charities Do, Sacramento Region and Minnesota.............. 146

Figure 43: Confidence in Charitable Organizations, Sacramento Region and Minnesota ...................... 146

Figure 44: Trust in Regional Charities, Sacramento Region and Minnesota .......................................... 147

Figure 45: The Influence of Trust on Charitable Giving, Sacramento Region and Minnesota ................ 147

Figure 46: Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 for Non-Donors Who Had Given in the Past, Sacramento Region and U.S. Households .................................................................................. 148

Figure 47: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving, Sacramento Region and Minnesota ..................................................................................................................................... 149

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page vii

Table of Tables Table 1: Sample Segments ...................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Type of Phone Line Used for Interview ....................................................................................... 6

Table 3: Interview Language .................................................................................................................... 7

Table 4: Response Rate .......................................................................................................................... 7

Table 5: Population and Survey Respondent Distribution for Main Sample ............................................... 8

Table 6: County Distribution for Sacramento Region Population and Age Oversample ............................. 8

Table 7: County Distribution for Sacramento Region Population and Income Oversample ........................ 9

Table 8: Population and Survey Respondent Distribution for New Wealth Areas ...................................... 9

Table 9: Margin of Error for a Range of Sample Sizes .............................................................................. 9

Table 10: Summary Statistics for Donation Amount Outliers ................................................................... 10

Table 11: Sample Segment for Donation Amount Outliers ...................................................................... 10

Table 12: Participation in Charitable Giving, Sacramento Region 2009 .................................................. 12

Table 13: Mean, Median, and Stand Deviation of Amounts Donated to Types of Organizations, Sacramento Region 2009 (with Outliers Removed) ......................................................... 14

Table 14: Participation in Charitable Giving by Respondent Age ............................................................ 22

Table 15: Participation in Charitable Giving by Household Income ......................................................... 22

Table 16: Participation in Charitable Giving by Educational Attainment .................................................. 22

Table 17: Participation in Charitable Giving by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................ 22

Table 18: Participation in Charitable Giving by Employment Status ........................................................ 22

Table 19: Participation in Charitable Giving by Religious Preference ...................................................... 23

Table 20: Donations to Types of Organizations by Respondents Age ..................................................... 23

Table 21: Donations to Types Organizations by Household Income ....................................................... 24

Table 22: Donations to Types Organizations by Educational Attainment................................................. 25

Table 23: Donations to Types of Organizations by Race/Ethnicity .......................................................... 26

Table 24: Donations to Types Organizations by Employment Status ...................................................... 27

Table 25: Donations to Types Organizations by Religious Preference .................................................... 28

Table 26: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Respondents Age .............................. 29

Table 27: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Household Income ............................. 29

Table 28: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Educational Attainment ...................... 30

Table 29: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Race/Ethnicity .................................... 31

Table 30: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Employment Status ............................ 32

Table 31: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Religious Preference .......................... 33

Table 32: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Age ............................ 38

Table 33: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Household Income ................................................................................................................................. 38

Table 34: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 39

Table 35: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 36: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Gender ...................... 41

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page viii

Table 37: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Employment Status ............................................................................................................................... 42

Table 38: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Religious Preference............................................................................................................................................. 43

Table 39: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Age .............................. 46

Table 40: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Household Income ................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 41: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Years of Residency ............................................................................................................................... 46

Table 42: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Educational Attainment .......................................................................................................................... 47

Table 43: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 44: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Gender ......................... 47

Table 45: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Employment Status ............................................................................................................................... 47

Table 46: Importance of Donating Locally by Age .................................................................................. 48

Table 47: Importance of Donating Locally by Household Income ............................................................ 48

Table 48: Importance of Donating Locally by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................. 48

Table 49: Importance of Donating Locally by Employment Status........................................................... 48

Table 50: Importance of Donating Locally by Gender ............................................................................. 49

Table 51: Importance of Donating Locally by Religious Preference ........................................................ 49

Table 52: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Age ............................................................. 52

Table 53: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Household Income ...................................... 52

Table 54: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment ............................... 53

Table 55: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity ............................................. 53

Table 56: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Residency ................................................... 54

Table 57: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Employment Status ..................................... 54

Table 58: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Church Attendance ..................................... 55

Table 59: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Age ................................................ 58

Table 60: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Household Income.......................... 58

Table 61: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 62: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity ................................ 59

Table 63: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Gender ........................................... 59

Table 64: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Employment Status ........................ 59

Table 65: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Age ..................................................................... 62

Table 66: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Household Income .............................................. 62

Table 67: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Educational Attainment ....................................... 62

Table 68: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................... 63

Table 69: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Employment Status ............................................. 63

Table 70: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Religious Preference........................................... 63

Table 71: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Age ................................................. 66

Table 72: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Household Income ........................... 66

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page ix

Table 73: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Educational Attainment ............................................................................................................................................. 66

Table 74: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Race/Ethnicity ................................. 67

Table 75: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Employment Status.......................... 67

Table 76: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Church Attendance .......................... 67

Table 77: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Age................................................................................ 73

Table 78: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Household Income ......................................................... 74

Table 79: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment .................................................. 75

Table 80: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity................................................................ 76

Table 81: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Residency...................................................................... 77

Table 82: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Gender .......................................................................... 78

Table 83: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Age ............................. 81

Table 84: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Household Income .................................................................................................................................................. 81

Table 85: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................................................................... 81

Table 86: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Residency ................... 81

Table 87: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Employment Status ............................................................................................................................... 82

Table 88: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Church Attendance ................................................................................................................................ 82

Table 89: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Religious Preference ............................................................................................................................. 82

Table 90: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Age .............................................................. 83

Table 91: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Household Income ....................................... 83

Table 92: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Race/Ethnicity .............................................. 83

Table 93: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Age ......................................................... 84

Table 94: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Household Income .................................. 84

Table 95: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Educational Attainment ........................... 84

Table 96: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Race/Ethnicity ......................................... 84

Table 97: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Religious Preference ............................... 85

Table 98: Estate Plan or Will by Age ...................................................................................................... 87

Table 99: Planned Giving by Age ........................................................................................................... 88

Table 100: Estate Plan or Will by Household Income ............................................................................. 88

Table 101: Planned Giving by Household Income .................................................................................. 88

Table 102: Estate Plan or Will by Educational Attainment ...................................................................... 88

Table 103: Planned Giving by Educational Attainment ........................................................................... 88

Table 104: Estate Plan or Will by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................... 89

Table 105: Planned Giving by Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 89

Table 106: Estate Plan or Will by Religious Preference .......................................................................... 89

Table 107: Planned Giving by Religious Preference ............................................................................... 89

Table 108: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Age .................................................... 92

Table 109: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs Household Income .................................. 92

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page x

Table 110: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Educational Attainment ....................... 92

Table 111: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Race/Ethnicity .................................... 92

Table 112: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Gender ............................................... 93

Table 113: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Religious Preference .......................... 93

Table 114: Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and Age Oversample ............................. 95

Table 115: Charitable Donations by Age ................................................................................................ 98

Table 116: Percent Donating to Each Recipient Type by Age ................................................................. 99

Table 117: Mean Donation Amounts by Age .......................................................................................... 99

Table 118: Motivations for Giving by Age ............................................................................................. 100

Table 119: Average Percentage of Donations to Different Areas by Age .............................................. 100

Table 120: Importance of Donating to Local Charitable Organizations by Age ...................................... 100

Table 121: Methods of Giving by Age .................................................................................................. 101

Table 122: Sources of Information by Age ........................................................................................... 101

Table 123: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Age ................................................................. 101

Table 124: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Age.............................................. 102

Table 125: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Age ............................................................................ 103

Table 126: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Age ......................... 104

Table 127: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Age .......................................................... 104

Table 128: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Age ..................................................... 104

Table 129: Percentage of Program Funding from Government and Charities by Age ............................ 104

Table 130: Planned Giving by Age ....................................................................................................... 105

Table 131: Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and Income Oversample ...................... 106

Table 132: Charitable Donations by Household Income* ...................................................................... 109

Table 133: Percent Donating to Each Recipient Type by Household Income ........................................ 109

Table 134: Mean Donation Amounts by Household Income ................................................................. 110

Table 135: Motivations for Giving by Household Income ...................................................................... 110

Table 136: Average Percentage of Donations to Different Areas by Household Income........................ 111

Table 137: Importance of Donating to Local Charitable Organizations by Household Income ............... 111

Table 138: Methods of Giving by Household Income ............................................................................ 111

Table 139: Sources of Information by Household Income ..................................................................... 112

Table 140: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Household Income .......................................... 112

Table 141: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Household Income ....................... 112

Table 142: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Household Income ..................................................... 113

Table 143: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Household Income ............................................................................................................................... 114

Table 144: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Household Income ................................... 114

Table 145: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Household Income .............................. 114

Table 146: Percentage of Program Funding from Government and Charities by Household Income ............................................................................................................................... 114

Table 147: Planned Giving by Household Income ................................................................................ 115

Table 148: Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ........................ 117

Table 149: Charitable Donations, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ..................................... 121

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page xi

Table 150: Percent Donating to Each Recipient Type, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ............................................................................................................................... 122

Table 151: Mean Donation Amounts, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ............................... 122

Table 152: Motivations for Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas .................................... 123

Table 153: Average Percentage of Donations to Different Areas, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ........................................................................................................................ 123

Table 154: Importance of Donating to Local Charitable Organizations, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ............................................................................................................ 124

Table 155: Methods of Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ......................................... 124

Table 156: Sources of Information, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas .................................. 124

Table 157: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ............................................................................................................................... 125

Table 158: Previous, Current and Future Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas.............. 125

Table 159: Trust in Charitable Organizations, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas .................. 126

Table 160: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ........................................................................................ 127

Table 161: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ............................................................................................................................... 127

Table 162: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ............................................................................................................................... 127

Table 163: Mean Percentage of Program Funding, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 127

Table 164: Planned Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas.............................................. 128

Table 165: Age Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2009 and 2015 .............................................. 129

Table 166: Race/Ethnicity Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2009 and 2015 .............................. 130

Table 167: Educational Attainment Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2009 and 2015 ................. 130

Table 168: Household Income Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2010 and 2015 ....................... 131

Table 169: Giving Rates, Average Contribution per Donor Household, and Average per Household Contribution, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S 2006 .................................................. 138

Table 170: Comparison of National Distribution of Donations by Type of Recipient............................... 141

Table 171: Planned Donations to Charity, Sacramento Region ............................................................ 150

Final Report for the 2010 Survey on Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Page 1

Key Findings

Participation in Giving: Sixty-two percent of households in the Sacramento region made

donations of more than $25 to religious or charitable organizations. Households that donated were most likely to contribute to charitable organizations that help people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities (63%), followed by contributions to religious organizations (59%). Religious organizations received the largest share of donations (37%). Overall, households with incomes of $100,000 or more were the most likely to donate to charitable organizations, with 96 percent making donations. Hispanic respondents were the least likely to donate to charitable organizations, with 37 percent making donations. Households with incomes of $100,000 or more also had the highest mean donation at $2,220; however Asian/Pacific Islanders had the lowest mean donation amount at $618. This suggests that although Hispanics made fewer donations their donation amounts were slightly higher than Asian/Pacific Islanders. Compared to U.S. households in 2006, Sacramento regional households were slightly less likely to donate to charitable organizations (66% vs. 62% respectively). In addition, the average donation amount for Sacramento regional households was $257 less than the national average for 2006 ($1,990 vs. $2,213 respectively). Compared to Atlanta (2007), Indianapolis (2006), and U.S. households (2006), Sacramento regional households gave less to religious organizations and more to education, art and culture, the environment, and international organizations.

Motivations for Giving: More than two-thirds of respondents reported that ―giving back‖

(69%) and ―directly helping‖ (68%) were major motivations for donating to charitable organizations. Hispanic respondents were the most likely to say that ―giving back to society‖ was a major motivation for their charitable donations (81%). ―Being asked to give by a celebrity‖ was the least popular major motivation for several different demographic groups, including respondents with a graduate or professional degree (1%), retired respondents (1%), Whites (2%), and Protestants (2%). None of the respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more cited celebrity requests as a major motivation to make a donation. Sacramento region residents’ reasons for donating to charities were very similar to residents in other geographic areas. Four motivations for giving were more important for Sacramento region residents than they were for residents in Atlanta (2007), Kansas City (2007), and Indianapolis (2006). Those factors include tax benefits, being asked to give by an employer, being asked by a friend or associate, and directly helping.

Destination of Giving: The majority of donations (63%) went to charitable organizations in

the Sacramento region. Of all demographic groups, Hispanic respondents gave the highest average percentage of their donations to charities in the Sacramento Region (80%). Respondents aged 65 years or older gave the smallest percentage of their donations to local charities (49%). Respondents aged 65 years or older were also the least likely to say that donating to local charities is ―very important‖ (40%). An overwhelming majority of Sacramento region respondents (91%) reported that it was very or somewhat important to donate to local charities.

Method of Giving: The three most popular methods of giving were donations through religious organizations (48%), donating by mail requests (40%), and donating online (34%). Of all the demographic characteristics that were analyzed, respondents who attend religious services once a week were the most likely to state they donate through their religious organization (77%), and African Americans were the second most likely to indicate they


donate through their religious organizations (67%). Social media was the least frequent donation method for respondents with household incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 (1%), those with a high school degree or less (1%). African Americans did not cite social media as a method used to make a donation.

Sources of Information: The most common source of information about charitable

organizations was charities’ direct mail to respondents (34%). Respondents aged 65 years or older were the most likely to receive information about charities through the charities’ direct mail (50%). Respondents under the age of 40 were the least likely to use newspapers as a source of information about charities (3%).

Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving More: The top two reasons that respondents gave for not donating more in 2009 were that some charities have high administrative costs (76%) and that they could not afford to give more (73%). Other popular reasons included already giving to their church (59%), already supporting too many charities (54%), and being unsure what charities did with their last gift (51%). Of all the demographic characteristics analyzed, respondents aged 65 and older and Protestants were the most likely to cite high administrative costs as the reason they do not donate more to charities (91% and 92% respectively). African Americans were the least likely to agree with the following statement, ―I don’t think charities deserve my support‖ (3%).

Comparisons of Past, Present, and Future Giving: While one-quarter of respondents

reported that they plan on giving more in 2010 than in 2009, a majority of respondents (57%) reported that they plan on giving the same amount in 2010 as they did in 2009. Overall, retired respondents were the most likely to have donated the same in 2009 as they did in 2008 (56%). They were also the most likely to say they plan on donating the same in 2010 as they did in 2009 (69%) and the least likely to indicate they plan on donating more in 2010 than they did in 2009 (13%). African Americans were the least likely to have donated more in 2009 than they did in 2008 (6%).

Trust in Charitable Organizations: A large majority of respondents (80%) reported having either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in charitable organizations, with 65 percent of respondents reporting that their trust in charitable organizations increases their charitable donations. Overall, respondents felt that charitable organizations do a somewhat good job running their programs and services (48%) as well as spending money wisely (45%). Of all the demographic characteristics analyzed, respondents with a graduate or professional degree were the most likely to indicate that their general trust in charities influences their charitable giving (84%). Respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more were the least likely to say they trust national charities more than local charities (4%). Data available for regional comparisons was limited to a single study which describes Minnesota residents in 2007. Sacramento region residents consistently voiced a slightly greater sense of trust in charities than their counterparts in Minnesota, and have slightly more positive perceptions of how well charitable organizations run their programs and services and whether or not they spend their money wisely.

Those Who Did Not Give: Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) who did not give to charitable organizations in 2009 have never donated to a charitable organization. Of these respondents, 69 percent reported that their financial situation prevented them from donating, with 19 percent reporting that they just chose not to give. For respondents who had donated in the past, not being able to afford to give money in 2009 was the number one


reason for not donating—it was mentioned by 71 percent of respondents. So regardless of their prior donating history, respondents’ financial situation was a major factor for approximately seven out of ten respondents. Among those who did not donate in 2009, older respondents (65 or older) and those with household incomes of $100,000 or more were the most likely to have donated in the past (56%) while Asian and Pacific Islander respondents were the least likely to have donated previously (6%). A single study describing U.S. residents in 2001 provided the only comparable data regarding non-contributing households’ reasons for not giving. Although many of the Sacramento region’s respondents’ reasons for not-giving are similar to the reasons given by U.S. residents in 2001, respondents in the Sacramento region were more likely to state that they would rather volunteer than donate and that they were being asked to give too frequently.

Planned Giving: Forty percent of all respondents reported having an estate plan or will; 22

percent of the estate plans/wills included planned giving. This means that that 8.6 percent of Sacramento region respondents have an estate plan or will that includes planned donations to charity. This is consistent with national estimates that eight percent of the population has a charity named in a will. Respondents aged 65 and older were the most likely to have an estate plan or will, at 74 percent. Hispanics were the least likely to have an estate plan or will (11%). Of those who had an estate plan or will, planned donations were most prevalent for respondents holding a graduate or professional degree, at 33 percent. Households with earnings less than $50,000 were the least likely to have planned donations in their estate plan or will (16%).

Funding Social Programs: A large majority of respondents indicated that government

should provide most of the funding for educational, health and human services, and environmental programs (74%, 69%, and 62%, respectively). In contrast, respondents felt that most of the funding for arts and cultural programs should be provided by private charities. Overall, African Americans were the most likely to indicate that the majority of funding for educational programs, health and human services, and environmental programs should come from the government instead of private charities. Asians and Pacific Islanders were more inclined to state that the majority of funding for arts and cultural programs should come from private charities. Potential Impact of Population Trends: Projections of demographic change, used in

conjunction with survey findings, indicate that three demographic trends—changes in the racial and ethnic distribution, increasing levels of educational attainment, and changes in household income—are likely to impact giving in the Sacramento Region during the next five years. California Department of Finance projections indicate that the relative proportion of White residents (the most likely to donate to charitable organizations) is projected to decrease, while the relative proportion of Hispanic residents (the least likely to donate) is projected to increase. If all else remains the same, these changes could have the effect of decreasing future regional giving. Changing trends in educational attainment may also signal changes in future charitable donations in the region. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 2000 to 2009, the proportion of Sacramento residents with a bachelor’s, graduate or professional degree increased, while the proportion of residents with less than high school, high school diploma, or some college decreased. The results of this study indicate that the likelihood of donating to a charitable organization increases with educational attainment. if the trend toward higher


levels of educational attainment continues, the increasing numbers of region residents holding a bachelor’s, graduate or professional degree may have a positive effect on donations. In spite of the current economic downturn, ESRI projects that median household income for the region will increase in the next five years. Since both giving rates and average donation amounts increase markedly with household income, the projected increases in household income would positively impact the level of future charitable giving.


Section 1: Introduction

Goals

This survey was conducted to provide the Center for Strategic Economic Research (CSER) with information on Sacramento region residents’ charitable giving behaviors, including motivating factors, and impediments to giving, and to compare findings regarding the Sacramento region with other published reports.

Methodology

The Institute for Social Research (ISR) at California State University, Sacramento conducted a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey of households in the Sacramento region on charitable giving behaviors in 2009. The four-county Sacramento region consists of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo counties. The following discussion describes the study methodology, including sample design, instrument design, data collection procedures, response rate, sample representativeness, precision of estimates, and several other factors relating to the data analysis.

Sample Design

In order to maximize the representativeness of the sample and minimize data collection costs, the sampling design specified four different segments—one main sample and three additional samples (Table 1). The main sample of 1,200 interviews consists of 300 interviews in each of the four counties.

1 The second and third sample segments consist of

age and income oversamples. The fourth sample segment focuses on new wealth areas in the Sacramento region.

Table 1: Sample Segments

Segment Number of Interviews

Main sample (all Sacramento region households) 1,200

Age oversample (65 years of age and older) 200

Income oversample (household income of $100,000 or more) 200

New wealth sample 380

The age and income oversamples were included to ensure that an adequate number of older and wealthier residents were surveyed. After the 1,200 interviews for the main sample were completed, 200 additional interviews were conducted with Sacramento region residents who were 65 years of age or older and 200 additional interviews were conducted with Sacramento residents with household incomes of $100,000 or more during 2009. Overlap between the two oversamples was permitted, and 46 respondents met both requirements. Eligibility for the oversampling criteria was determined through a set of screening questions. The age and income oversamples were proportional to the population.

1 This sampling strategy was not designed to create a stratified sample, but rather to identify potential

county abnormalities in the sample, and to provide an option for later individual county analysis. The sample was rebalanced and weighted by county prior to regional analysis.


CSER identified the areas for inclusion in the new wealth area sample (El Dorado Hills, Granite Bay, Folsom, and Rocklin) and provided the corresponding postal zip codes.

2 The

sampling frame was defined based on postal zip codes, and eligibility was confirmed through a set of screening questions. The new wealth sample was also proportional to the population. For the new wealth areas, 380 interviews were completed in the five designated postal zip code areas.

All four samples were drawn from Random Digit Dialing (RDD) records purchased from Sampling Telephone Samples (STS). The RDD samples include household landlines listed in telephone directories, those with unlisted or non-published numbers, and some cell phone numbers. Three percent of the completed surveys were conducted via cell phone (Table 2). Although it is a limitation of all telephone surveys, it should be noted that this under-represents wireless-only households. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that in 2007, nine percent of California households did not have a landline telephone but did have at least one cell phone.

3 This percentage has surely increased

during the last three years. This has important implications for the study findings, because compared to landline households, the wireless-only household population is younger and includes a larger percentage of non-whites.

Table 2: Type of Phone Line Used for Interview

Number Percent

Landline 1,919 95.9%

Cell 63 3.1%

Refused 19 0.9%

Total 2,001 100.0%

Instrument Design

The questionnaire was developed in coordination with CESR and the study Steering Committee. The questionnaire collects data for the 11 themes identified as top priorities for the study: 1) participation in giving, 2) motivations for giving, 3) destination of giving, 4) method of giving, 5) sources of information about charities, 6) reasons for not donating more, 7) comparisons of previous, current and future giving, 8) trust in charitable organizations, 9) reasons for not giving, 10) planned giving, and 11) funding for social programs.

Measures of giving participation were based on the Center on Philanthropy Panel Study (COPPS) module of the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID). Because one of the study objectives is to compare findings regarding the Sacramento region with other published reports, ISR reviewed numerous studies on household giving behavior and where possible, modeled questions on the best practices of measure used in prior studies. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix A.

2 The zip codes included were 95762, 95630, 95746, 95677, and 95765.

3 National Health Statistics Reports, Wireless Substitution: State-level Estimates From the National Health

Interview Survey, March 2009.


Data Collection

Interviews were conducted from June 12 through August 2, 2010. The survey was conducted using WinCATI software from Sawtooth Technologies. The ability to generalize survey results to a larger population depends in large part on the response rate of a survey. The use of CATI helps increase the accuracy of information collected and improves sample representativeness by making multiple attempts to reach potential respondents. Call attempts are distributed throughout the course of a study so that numbers are not called repeatedly at the same time of day or on the same day of the week.

Bilingual interviewers conducted surveys in English or Spanish at the request of the respondent. If the interviewer was unable to reach or communicate with the respondent, the household’s language needs were assessed, and the call was transferred to the appropriate bilingual interviewer. Two percent of respondents requested a Spanish interview (Table 3). If interviewers encountered one or more comprehension problems or identified a respondent’s preferred language as other than English or Spanish, the case was assigned a language barrier disposition and the interview was terminated.

Table 3: Interview Language

Number Percent

English 1,959 97.9%

Spanish 42 2.1%

Total 2,001 100.0%

Response Rate

Of the 3,825 households contacted, 2,001 completed the interview, producing a response rate of 52 percent, which is a good response rate in the current environment (Table 4). In an effort to recruit hard-to-reach respondents, ensure adequate response rates, and minimize the potential for non-response error, interviewers made up to ten callback attempts to eligible respondents or respondents of unknown eligibility. To the extent possible, interviewers scheduled callback dates and times to best match respondents’ availability. Pre-screener hang-ups and initial (soft) refusals (respondents of unknown eligibility) received up to two refusal conversion attempts within 5 to 10 days from the original contact. Post-screener initial (soft) refusals (eligible respondents) received up to two refusal conversion attempts based on the supervisor’s judgment that there was at least a 50 percent chance the respondent could be converted at a later time.

Table 4: Response Rate

Number Percent

Completed Interviews 2,001 52.3%

Refusals 1,824 47.7%

Total 3,825 100.0%


Representativeness of the Sample

After the main sample was weighted to adjust for stratification by county, the demographic characteristics

4 of the main sample were compared to U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American

Community Survey data for the Sacramento region (Table 5). The sample closely matched the population in terms of age, education, race, ethnicity and income. However, as is typical for a telephone survey of this nature, the sample slightly under-represented several groups: those under 45 years of age, those with household incomes under $50,000; those with less than a bachelor’s degree, those of Hispanic or Latino origin, African Americans, and Asians. To adjust for this, the main sample was weighted on age, income, race, ethnicity, and educational attainment to mirror the population distribution.

5

Since the age and income oversamples and the new wealth samples were selected proportionate to the population, these sample segments were not weighted. The county distribution of the age and income oversamples closely matches that of the population (Table 6 and Table 7). It is worth noting that the new wealth sample is distributed differently than the population in these areas. The new wealth sample under-represents households from Folsom and over-represents households from El Dorado Hills (Table 8). Given the descriptive nature of the new wealth analysis, these differences do not pose a problem.

Table 5: Population and Survey Respondent Distribution for Main Sample

Households, Sacramento Region‡

Unweighted Main Sample, Completed Surveys

Weighted Main Sample, Completed Surveys

County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

El Dorado 70,245 8.7% 307 25.0% 107 8.7%

Placer 134,740 16.7% 307 25.0% 206 16.7%

Sacramento 531,516 65.8% 305 24.9% 811 65.8%

Yolo 71,615 8.9% 307 25.0% 109 8.8%

Total 808,116 100.0% 1,226 100.0% 1,233 100.0%

‡ Source: California Department of Finance Table 1: E-5 County/State Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2010

Table 6: County Distribution for Sacramento Region Population and Age Oversample

Population 65 Years of Age and Older, Sacramento Region‡

Age Oversample, Completed Surveys

County Number Percent Number Percent

El Dorado 19,971 8.3% 17 8.0%

Placer 49,098 20.3% 45 21.1%

Sacramento 154,149 63.7% 134 62.9%

Yolo 18,612 7.7% 17 8.0%

Total 241,830 100.0% 213 100.0%

‡Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

4 The reader should keep in mind that the survey was designed as a household survey; however,

demographic characteristics were based on respondent characteristics as measured by question responses. 5 Appendix B provides weighted frequency tables for all survey questions, including demographics.


Table 7: County Distribution for Sacramento Region Population and Income Oversample

Households with Incomes of $100,000 or More, Sacramento Region‡

Income Oversample, Completed Surveys

County Number Percent Number Percent

El Dorado 21,408 11.1% 28 12.3%

Placer 36,160 18.8% 53 23.2%

Sacramento 116,057 60.4% 131 57.5%

Yolo 18,539 9.6% 16 7.0%

Total 192,164 100.0% 228 100.0%

‡ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

Table 8: Population and Survey Respondent Distribution for New Wealth Areas

Households, Sacramento Region‡

New Wealth Sample, Completed Surveys

County City/ Zip Number Percent Number Percent

El Dorado El Dorado Hills (95762) 32,442 19.1% 134 35.3%

Placer Granite Bay (95746) 20,001 11.8% 52 13.7%

Rocklin (95677/95765) 55,135 32.4% 145 38.2%

Sacramento Folsom (95630) 62,546 36.8% 49 12.9%

Total

170,124 100.0% 380 100.0%

‡ Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey

Precision of Estimates

Random selection of respondents, a sufficient sample size, and high response rates contribute to a sample’s representativeness. The precision with which these survey findings predict values for the Sacramento region is a function of the desired level of confidence and the number of cases generating a given sample value. With a 95% confidence interval—which means that 95 out of 100 random samples would produce values within the specified range—and approximately 1,200 cases, ranges for the comparable Sacramento region population would be within plus or minus 2.83 percent of the sample values.

It should be noted that in some instances, the main sample and the age and income oversamples produce slightly different estimates of the population value. The oversample estimates are the most reliable and provide the highest level of precision for those over the age of 65 and those with household incomes over $100,000.

Table 9: Margin of Error for a Range of Sample Sizes

Sample size 1200 800 600 400 200 100

Margin of error‡ 2.83% 3.46% 4.00% 4.90% 6.93% 9.80%

‡ With a 95% confidence interval, a 50% response distribution, and a population of 865,563 households.

Demographic Variables for Bivariate Analysis

Through a joint effort with CSER and ISR, a select group of demographic characteristics of potential interest for analysis with each questionnaire item were selected. Generally, only those characteristics for which statistically significant relationships were found are included in this report. However, there are specific instances in which a series of questions or a


series of response categories all pertain to the same topic. In those instances, relationships that are not statistically significant are included for continuity.

For bivariate analysis of the relationships between demographic characteristics and giving behaviors and attitudes, it was necessary to collapse and in some cases, drop demographic categories with small numbers of cases. Several modifications were necessary for the race/ethnicity variable. Race and ethnicity were combined so that all respondents of Hispanic/Latino origin were included in one category. Seven groups (Asian Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, and Pacific Islanders) were collapsed to create an ―Asian/Pacific Islander‖ category. Three groups (American Indian/Alaska Native, multi-racial, and other) were dropped because the small number of cases could not provide reliable results and could produce misleading conclusions. For the descriptions of differences by employment status, respondents who were disabled were also dropped from the analysis because of the small number of cases.

Outlier Donation Amounts

To reduce bias and distortion in the data and to avoid reaching incorrect conclusions, donation amount outliers were excluded from the analysis of donation amounts presented in Section 2.

6 Twenty-nine donations of more than $10,400 were defined as outliers (three or

more standard deviations from the mean donation amount) (Table 10). These donations totaled $737,566 and averaged $25,433. They ranged from $11,000 to $150,000. Twenty-two of these donations were to religious organizations. The average amount of these donations was $18,050 and they ranged from $11,000 to $50,000. The largest donation amount of $150,000 was made to organization(s) serving a combination of needs. Eighteen donation outliers were from households that were part of the main sample. Six were from the age and income oversamples and five were from the new wealth sample (Table 11).

7

Table 10: Summary Statistics for Donation Amount Outliers

Number Total Average Minimum Maximum

All organizations 29 $737,566 $25,433 $15,000 $150,000

Religious organizations 22 $397,100 $18,050 $11,000 $50,000

All other organizations 7 $340,466 $48,638 $15,000 $150,000

Combination of needs 2 $165,000 $82,500 $15,000 $150,000

Basic needs 1 $25,000 n/a n/a n/a

Health 1 $20,000 n/a n/a n/a

Education 1 $40,000 n/a n/a n/a

Youth and family 1 $40,466 n/a n/a n/a

Art and culture 1 $50,000 n/a n/a n/a

Table 11: Sample Segment for Donation Amount Outliers

Number

Main sample 18

Age and income oversamples 6

New wealth sample 5

Total 29

6 Section 16, which describes donation amounts from the Sacramento region relative to national

donations, includes outliers for comparability. 7 Appendix C provides average (mean) donation amounts by type of organization with outliers included.


Report Organization

Sections 2-12 of this report are organized according to the 11 themes identified as top priorities for the study. Each of these sections focuses on a theme and begins by providing an overview of the responses for the Sacramento region as a whole. This overview is followed by an examination of the statistically significant relationships between the theme and demographic characteristics. Section 13 provides subgroup analysis focusing on the oversamples of older residents and wealthier residents. Section 14 describes findings from the survey of residents of the new wealth areas. Section 15 explores changes in the demographics of the Sacramento region and the potential impact these changes may have on future charitable giving.

Section 16 compares results for the Sacramento region with findings from published reports describing other geographic areas. Comparable findings from published reports are included when the questionnaire wording matched exactly. When findings from multiple geographic areas were available for comparison, data for cities and/or metropolitan areas were used, rather than statewide results. The report appendices include a copy of the survey instrument and weighted frequencies for the main sample on all survey questions.


Section 2: Participation in Giving The following section describes participation in charitable giving, the types of organizations respondents contributed to, and the average (mean) dollar amount of their donations.

“During the year 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) donate money, assets, or property/goods, with a combined value of $25 or more to religious or charitable

organizations?”

Sixty-two percent of households in the Sacramento region made charitable gifts in 2009 (Table 12). The mean contribution per donor household was $1,511.

Table 12: Participation in Charitable Giving, Sacramento Region 2009

Number Percent

Donations to charity during 2009*

Yes 754 61.6%

No 469 38.4%

Total 1,224 100.0%

NOTE: Totals may not add due to rounding. Because responses were weighted, this applies to the number of cases as well as the percentages.

Sacramento region households were more likely to have donated to secular organizations than to religious organizations (Figure 1). Fifty-eight percent of respondents donated to secular organizations. In comparison, one-third of respondents donated to religious organizations. Although fewer households donated to religious organizations than to secular organizations, the average value of religious donations was approximately one-third higher than the average donation to secular organizations ($1,338 vs. $1,009, respectively).

Figure 1: Giving Rates and Mean Contributions per Donor Household, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates

Mean Contribution per Donor Household

Respondents who donated to a charity in 2009 were asked whether they or anyone else in their household made any donations during 2009 to each of eleven different types of charities. Respondents who donated to a particular type of charity were asked about the dollar value of their donations. The following description reports the average (mean) value of these donations. Although outliers have been excluded from the analysis (see survey methodology for details), because the mean values are influenced by both high and low values, it is important to note that some categories have large standard deviations (Table

61.6%

32.7%

57.9%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Total

Religious

Secular

$1,511

$1,338

$1,009

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Total

Religious

Secular


13).8 For example, donations to religious organizations ranged from $5 to $10,000. The

average donation for this category was $1,338 and the standard deviation was $1,821. This suggests that a relatively small number of individuals making large donations have unduly influenced the average to appear higher than it would have been based on a majority of respondents.

Figure 2: Percent of Donor Households Giving and Mean Contributions per Donor Household by Type of Recipient Organization, Sacramento Region 2009

Percent of Donor Households Giving Mean Contribution per Donor Household

Religious

Combination of Needs

Basic Needs

Health

Education

Youth and Family

Art and Culture

Neighborhood & Community

Preserve Environment

International

Other Organizations9

Donor households were more likely to contribute to charitable organizations that help people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities (63%) than to any other type of organization. However, the average dollar value of each donation to charities that provide basic needs ($344) was considerably smaller than donations to other popular types of charities (Figure 2).

A majority of donor households (54%) donated to religious organizations. The average amount contributed per donor household was $1,338, which was more than double the average for any other type of organization.

Less than one-half of donor households (44%) gave to organizations like the United Way and OxFam that serve a combination of purposes. The average dollar value of each donation to these charities was $606.

Less than one-half of donor households (44%) gave to health care or medical research organizations. The average dollar value of each donation to health care charities was $221, which was one of the lowest average donation amounts.

8 In Appendix C, Appendix Table 19 shows average (mean) donation amounts by type of organization

with extreme values (outliers) included. 9 Please see Appendix C, Responses to Other Categories

Appendix Table 20 for a listing of other types of organizations.

53.8% $1,338

44.0% $606

62.9% $344

43.5% $221

33.3% $455

30.1% $261

15.6% $393

13.6% $269

24.5% $196

34.0% $254

6.2% $563


Thirty-four percent of donor households gave to organizations that provide international aid or promote world peace. The average dollar value of each donation to international organizations was $254.

One-in-three donor households contributed to educational organizations (33%) with an average donation value of $455.

Thirty percent of donor households contributed to organizations that provide youth and family services with a mean donation value of $261.

One-fourth of donor households contributed to organizations that help preserve the environment (25%) and each donated an average of $196. This was the lowest average donation amount for any type of recipient organization.

Sixteen percent of donor households contributed to organizations that support or promote the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness and, on average, gave $393 each.

Fourteen percent of donor households contributed to organizations that improve neighborhoods and communities with an average (mean) donation value of $269.

Six percent of donor households contributed to other types of organizations, which included donations to veterans, fire fighters, and law enforcement organizations. Interestingly, although this is the lowest giving rate for all recipient types, the average donation value for these organizations ($563) was the third highest.

Table 13: Mean, Median, and Stand Deviation of Amounts Donated to Types of Organizations, Sacramento Region 2009 (with Outliers Removed)

10

Types of Organizations N Mean Median Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

All organizations 597 $1,511 $611 $2,383 $10 $24,100

Secular organizations 560 $1,009 $480 $1,888 $2 $16,100

Religious 252 $1,338 $500 $1,821 $5 $10,000

Combination of needs 240 $606 $200 $1,285 $5 $8,000

Basic needs 312 $344 $200 $630 $10 $6,000

Health 225 $221 $100 $498 $5 $5,000

Education 178 $455 $200 $685 $5 $5,000

Youth & family 158 $261 $100 $703 $5 $10,000

Art & culture 88 $393 $100 $885 $5 $3,800

Neighborhood & community 69 $269 $100 $649 $10 $4,000

Preserve environment 126 $196 $76 $621 $2 $6,000

International 167 $254 $100 $621 $10 $5,000

Other organizations 35 $563 $200 $731 $20 $2,500

10

In Appendix C, Error! Reference source not found. shows average (mean) donation amounts by type of organization with extreme values (outliers) included.


Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient

As the previous discussion demonstrated, the percentage of households donating to particular types of organizations was not always related to the dollar value of the donations made. To help solve this problem, the following description examines the estimated percentage of donations made to each type of recipient organization.

The survey findings indicate that religious organizations received the largest share of donations from households in the Sacramento region during 2009 (Figure 3). Roughly 37 cents of every dollar donated was for religious purposes or spiritual development. Organizations serving a combination of needs—such as the United Way, the United Jewish Appeal, the Catholic Charities, or local community foundations—received the second-highest share, at 16 cents per dollar.

Twelve cents of every dollar donated went to organizations that help people in need of food, shelter, or other necessities. Nine cents of every dollar donated was given to educational organizations, including colleges, grade schools, PTAs, libraries, or scholarship funds. Health care and medical research organizations received six cents each of every dollar donated.

Organizations that provide youth or family services and those that provide international aid or promote world peace each received five cents of every dollar donated. Four cents per dollar were made to organizations that support or promote the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness. Organizations that preserve the environment, including conservations efforts, animal protection, and parks, received three cents per dollar.

Two cents of every dollar donated went to organizations that improve neighborhoods and communities, such as Rotary clubs, Kiwanis clubs, Chambers of Commerce, and neighborhood improvement associations. Donations to charitable organizations with purposes other than these ten categories also made up two cents of every dollar donated. .

Figure 3: Distribution of Donations by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region 2009

37.4%

16.1%

11.9%

5.5%

9.0%

4.6%

3.8%

2.1%

2.7%

4.7%

2.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Religious

Combination of needs

Basic needs

Health

Education

Youth & family

Art & culture

Neighborhood & community

Preserve environment

International

Other organizations


Participation in Giving by Demographic Characteristics

The following discussion describes findings regarding the relationships between individual and household demographic characteristics and giving. The following respondent and household demographic characteristics are examined: age, gender, household income, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, employment status, church attendance, and religious preference.

Giving by respondent age. Respondents under 40 years of age were less likely to donate than older respondents. This difference was more pronounced for secular giving. Thirty-nine percent of respondents less than 40 years old donated to a secular organization, compared to 69 percent of respondents aged 40-64. Age was not related to average donation amount (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Age, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates

Average Amount per Donor Household

Under 40 40-64 65 or older

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05). Chi-Square was used for giving rates and the F-

test (ANOVA) was used for donation amounts.

Giving by gender. Female respondents were more likely than males to report that their household donated to a charitable organization. The difference, however, was not particularly large: 65 percent of females reported donating, compared to 56 percent of males. The pattern was the same for donations to religious and secular organizations.

Interestingly, the reverse was true for average donation amounts. In this case, the average donation amount was substantially higher for male respondents than it was for females. The average total donation amount reported by males was $2,102, compared to $1,259 for females. The same pattern was observed for donations to both religious and secular organizations (Figure 5).

41%

24%

39%

74%

37%

69%

71%

39%

67%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$1,536

$1,137

$1,098

$1,648

$1,528

$1,089

$1,299

$1,147

$820

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total

Religious

Secular

Overall, households with incomes of $100,000 or more were the most likely to donate to charitable organizations, with 96 percent making donations.

Hispanic respondents were the least likely to donate to charitable organizations, with 37 percent making donations.

Households with incomes of $100,000 or more also had the highest mean donation at $2,220; however Asian/Pacific Islanders had the lowest mean donation amount at $618.


Figure 5: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Gender, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


Male Female

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05). Chi-Square was used for giving rates and the F-test (ANOVA) was used for donation amounts.

Giving by household income. There was a strong relationship between household income and giving rates. Households with incomes of $100,000 or more were more than twice as likely to donate as households with incomes under $50,000. This was true for both religious and secular giving.

There was also a strong relationship between household income and the average donation amount to secular organizations. On average, donations from households with incomes of $100,000 were more than three times the size of donations from households with incomes under $50,000. There was not a statistically significant relationship between income and the average amount of donations to religious organizations (Figure 6 and Table 15).

Figure 6: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Household Income, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 or more


56%

27%

51%

65%

36%

62%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$2,102

$1,872

$1,385

$1,259

$1,108

$848

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

40%

17%

36%

71%

41%

65%

96%

53%

92%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$774

$984

$439

$1,392

$1,353

$803

$2,220

$1,604

$1,423

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious

Secular*


Giving by respondent’s educational attainment. There was a strong relationship between educational attainment and giving rates. As educational attainment increased, so did the likelihood of donating. Respondents with a graduate or professional degree were roughly twice as likely to have donated as those with a high school degree or less.

The relationship between donation amount and education was strongest for religious donations and there was less difference between secular donation amounts. Respondents with some college had the lowest average donation amounts for both religious and secular organizations (Figure 7 and Table 16).

Figure 7: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Educational Attainment, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


High school or less Some college Bachelor’s degree Graduate or professional degree


Giving by respondent’s race/ethnicity. Respondent’s race and ethnicity was related to giving rates and average donation amounts. Secular giving rates varied more than religious giving rates. Hispanic respondents were less likely than other respondents to donate to religious and secular organizations. The difference was particularly notable for religious giving rates. Nineteen percent of Hispanic respondents donated to religious organizations, compared to between 33 and 38 percent for the other racial and ethnic groups.

Although Hispanic respondents had the lowest giving rates, their average religious donation amounts were higher than Asian/Pacific Islander respondents. Compared to other respondents, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic respondents reported lower average donation amounts to religious and secular organizations (Figure 8 and Table 17).

46%

24%

42%

65%

32%

60%

74%

44%

72%

85%

50%

81%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$1,505

$1,075

$1,261

$1,068

$1,021

$733

$1,973

$1,568

$1,149

$2,066

$1,968

$1,178

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious*

Secular*


Figure 8: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Race/Ethnicity, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


White Black/African American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander


Giving by respondent’s employment status. Respondents who were employed full-time and those who were retired had very similar giving rates. Part-time employees had lower secular giving rates and those who were not employed had the lowest giving rates of all groups.

Figure 9: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Employment Status, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


Full-time Part-time Not employed Retired


71%

36%

66%

49%

38%

49%

37%

19%

36%

54%

33%

50%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$1,711

$1,583

$1,197

$1,618

$1,567

$727

$1,078

$1,185

$491

$618

$499

$401

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

72%

36%

67%

51%

37%

47%

36%

19%

34%

74%

38%

71%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$1,752

$1,424

$1,200

$1,460

$1,529

$772

$942

$1,189

$626

$1,233

$1,042

$900

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious

Secular


The relationship between employment status and average donation amounts was less strong. There were no significant differences between the groups for either religious or secular donations. In terms of total donations, not surprisingly, full-time employees reported the highest donation amounts. Total donations for those who were not employed were nearly half the size of donations for full-time employees. Donation amounts for part-time employees and retirees were lower than amounts for full-time employees (Figure 9 and Table 18).

Giving by church attendance. Not surprisingly, there was a very strong relationship between church attendance and giving rates to religious organizations. Respondents who attended church once a week were more than eight times as likely to donate to religious organizations as those who never attended church services.

There was also a strong relationship between church attendance and the average amount donated to religious organizations. Donations from respondents who attended church once a week were on average, nearly five times larger than donations from respondents who seldom attended church. Donations from respondents who never attended church were very similar to those who attended church a few times a month (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Church Attendance, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


Once a week A few times a month Seldom Never

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05). Chi-Square was used for giving rates and the F-

test (ANOVA) was used for donation amounts.

Giving by religious preference. Although giving rates and average donation amounts were statistically significantly related to religious preference, most of the differences are not dramatic. Protestant and other Christian respondents had higher giving rates than Catholic respondents and those in the ―other religion‖ category.

11 Not surprisingly, those with no

11

Respondents in the ―other Christian‖ category include Mormon/Latter Day Saint, Quaker, Jehovah’s Witness, Mennonite, and non-denominational Christian. Respondents in the ―other religion‖ category include Jewish, Muslim/Islamic, and other religious preference.

72%

61%

64%

58%

43%

55%

62%

14%

59%

50%

7%

50%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$2,006

$1,771

$988

$1,366

$918

$788

$951

$355

$929

$1,401

$789

$1,324

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious*

Secular


religious preference had markedly lower giving rates to religious organizations. Protestant and other Christian respondents had higher average donation amounts to religious organizations. Those in the ―other religion‖ category and with no religious preference had higher average donation amounts to secular organizations (Figure 11 and Table 19).

Figure 11: Giving Rates and Average Donation Amounts by Religious Preference, Sacramento Region 2009

Giving Rates


Protestant Catholic Other Christian Other None


Additional detail on demographic characteristics and giving to specific types of organizations.

12 Tables 14 through 31 provides additional detail on the relationships

between respondent and household characteristics and donations to specific types of organizations. Tables 14 through 19 show the percentage of donor households who contributed to each type of recipient organization by a series of respondent and household characteristics. Tables 20 through 31 show average (mean) amount per donor household by the same series of respondent and household characteristics.

12

Tables 20-31 all contain small cell sizes (less than 5); caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

68%

43%

62%

56%

34%

52%

68%

43%

64%

61%

38%

55%

55%

9%

52%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Total*

Religious*

Secular*

$1,845

$1,834

$912

$1,031

$664

$707

$1,990

$2,228

$1,084

$1,903

$1,085

$1,680

$1,337

$1,000

$1,253

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total*

Religious*

Secular*


Table 14: Participation in Charitable Giving by Respondent Age*

Under 40 years old 40 to 64 years old 65 and older

N % N % N %

Yes 153 41.1% 414 73.5% 124 70.5%

No 219 58.9% 149 26.5% 52 29.5%

Total 372 100.0% 563 100.0% 176 100.0% * Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square.

Table 15: Participation in Charitable Giving by Household Income*

Under $50,000

$50,000 but less than $100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Yes 143 39.9% 190 71.4% 191 95.5%

No 215 60.1% 76 28.6% 9 4.5%


Table 16: Participation in Charitable Giving by Educational Attainment*

High School or less Some College Bachelor’s Degree

Graduate or Professional degree

N % N % N % N %

Yes 192 45.5% 283 64.9% 171 74.0% 93 85.3%

No 230 54.5% 153 35.1% 60 26.0% 16 14.7%

Total 422 100.0% 436 100.0% 231 100.0% 109 100.0% * Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square.

Table 17: Participation in Charitable Giving by Race/Ethnicity*

White

Black/African American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

N % N % N % N %

Yes 491 71.2% 39 49.4% 76 37.1% 76 53.5%

No 199 28.8% 40 50.6% 129 62.9% 66 46.5%


Table 18: Participation in Charitable Giving by Employment Status*

Full-time Part-time Not Employed Retired

N % N % N % N %

Yes 390 71.6% 73 50.7% 82 35.8% 162 74.3%

No 155 28.4% 71 49.3% 147 64.2% 56 25.7%

Total 545 100.0% 144 100.0% 229 100.0% 218 100.0%

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square.


Table 19: Participation in Charitable Giving by Religious Preference*

Protestant Catholic Other Christian Other Religions

No Religious Preference

N % N % N % N % N %

Yes 170 67.5% 184 55.8% 122 67.8% 72 60.5% 130 55.1%

No 82 32.5% 146 44.2% 58 32.2% 47 39.5% 106 44.9%

Total 252 100.0% 330 100.0% 180 100.0% 119 100.0% 236 100.0%


Table 20: Donations to Types of Organizations by Respondents Age

Under 40 Years Old 40 to 64 Years Old 65 Years Old and Older

Types of Organizations N % N % N %

Religious Yes 90 58.8% 208 51.4% 68 55.3%

No 63 41.2% 197 48.6% 55 44.7%

Total 153 100.0% 405 100.0% 123 100.0%

Combination of needs Yes 68 45.0% 192 47.5% 51 42.5%

No 83 55.0% 212 52.5% 69 57.5%

Total 151 100.0% 404 100.0% 120 100.0%

Basic needs* Yes 68 46.3% 270 66.8% 80 67.8%

No 79 53.7% 134 33.2% 38 32.2%

Total 147 100.0% 404 100.0% 118 100.0%

Health* Yes 36 23.5% 197 48.0% 73 59.3%

No 117 76.5% 213 52.0% 50 40.7%

Total 153 100.0% 410 100.0% 123 100.0%

Education Yes 45 30.0% 148 36.4% 42 34.7%

No 105 70.0% 259 63.6% 79 65.3%

Total 150 100.0% 407 100.0% 121 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 43 28.1% 125 30.9% 38 30.9%

No 110 71.9% 280 69.1% 85 69.1%

Total 153 100.0% 405 100.0% 123 100.0%

Art & culture Yes 18 11.7% 67 16.4% 27 22.3%

No 136 88.3% 342 83.6% 94 77.7%

Total 154 100.0% 409 100.0% 121 100.0%


Yes 28 18.3% 46 11.3% 18 14.9%

No 125 81.7% 362 88.7% 103 85.1%

Total 153 100.0% 408 100.0% 121 100.0%

Preserve environment* Yes 31 20.7% 92 23.4% 46 37.4%

No 119 79.3% 301 76.6% 77 62.6%

Total 150 100.0% 393 100.0% 123 100.0%

International Yes 52 34.2% 146 35.7% 37 30.6%

No 100 65.8% 263 64.3% 84 69.4%

Total 152 100.0% 409 100.0% 121 100.0%

Other organizations† Yes 9 5.9% 30 7.2% 5 4.0%

No 144 94.1% 384 92.8% 119 96.0%


† Caution should be used due to the small number of cases.


Table 21: Donations to Types Organizations by Household Income

Under $50,000

$50,000 but less than $100,000 $100,000 or more

Types of Organization N % N % N %

Religious* Yes 61 43.0% 109 57.4% 106 56.7%

No 81 57.0% 81 42.6% 81 43.3%

Total 142 100.0% 190 100.0% 187 100.0%

Combination of needs* Yes 49 34.8% 80 43.0% 109 58.6%

No 92 65.2% 106 57.0% 77 41.4%

Total 141 100.0% 186 100.0% 186 100.0%

Basic needs Yes 84 61.8% 106 56.1% 125 66.1%

No 52 38.2% 83 43.9% 64 33.9%

Total 136 100.0% 189 100.0% 189 100.0%

Health* Yes 36 23.5% 197 48.0% 73 59.3%

No 117 76.5% 213 52.0% 50 40.7%

Total 153 100.0% 410 100.0% 123 100.0%

Education* Yes 36 24.8% 42 22.2% 95 50.0%

No 109 75.2% 147 77.8% 95 50.0%

Total 145 100.0% 189 100.0% 190 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 39 27.5% 64 33.7% 58 31.2%

No 103 72.5% 126 66.3% 128 68.8%

Total 142 100.0% 190 100.0% 186 100.0%

Art & culture Yes 23 16.2% 24 12.6% 38 19.9%

No 119 83.8% 166 87.4% 153 80.1%

Total 142 100.0% 190 100.0% 191 100.0%


Yes 17 12.0% 24 12.7% 26 13.7%

No 125 88.0% 165 87.3% 164 86.3%

Total 142 100.0% 189 100.0% 190 100.0%

Preserve environment* Yes 34 24.8% 30 16.5% 44 23.8%

No 103 75.2% 152 83.5% 141 76.2%

Total 137 100.0% 182 100.0% 185 100.0%

International* Yes 33 24.3% 65 34.0% 78 41.1%

No 103 75.7% 126 66.0% 112 58.9%

Total 136 100.0% 191 100.0% 190 100.0%

Other organizations† Yes 5 3.5% 14 7.4% 11 5.8%

No 137 96.5% 176 92.6% 180 94.2%




Table 22: Donations to Types Organizations by Educational Attainment

High School or Less Some College

Bachelor’s Degree

Graduate or Professional

Degree

Types of Organization N % N % N % N %

Religious* Yes 100 52.9% 141 50.9% 102 59.6% 54 58.1%

No 89 47.1% 136 49.1% 69 40.4% 39 41.9%

Total 189 100.0% 277 100.0% 171 100.0% 93 100.0%

Combination of needs* Yes 69 36.7% 124 44.4% 81 47.9% 47 53.4%

No 119 63.3% 155 55.6% 88 52.1% 41 46.6%

Total 188 100.0% 279 100.0% 169 100.0% 88 100.0%

Basic needs Yes 106 57.9% 171 62.0% 109 65.7% 66 72.5%

No 77 42.1% 105 38.0% 57 34.3% 25 27.5%

Total 183 100.0% 276 100.0% 166 100.0% 91 100.0%

Health* Yes 68 35.4% 132 46.8% 71 42.0% 48 52.2%

No 124 64.6% 150 53.2% 98 58.0% 44 47.8%

Total 192 100.0% 282 100.0% 169 100.0% 92 100.0%

Education* Yes 52 27.8% 86 31.0% 66 38.6% 39 42.9%

No 135 72.2% 191 69.0% 105 61.4% 52 57.1%

Total 187 100.0% 277 100.0% 171 100.0% 91 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 46 24.5% 94 33.9% 52 30.4% 27 29.0%

No 142 75.5% 183 66.1% 119 69.6% 66 71.0%

Total 188 100.0% 277 100.0% 171 100.0% 93 100.0%

Art & culture * Yes 26 13.8% 26 9.3% 38 22.2% 25 27.5%

No 163 86.2% 254 90.7% 133 77.8% 66 72.5%

Total 189 100.0% 280 100.0% 171 100.0% 91 100.0%


Yes 18 9.9% 34 12.1% 31 18.1% 15 16.7%

No 164 90.1% 248 87.9% 140 81.9% 75 83.3%

Total 182 100.0% 282 100.0% 171 100.0% 90 100.0%

Preserve environment* Yes 28 15.4% 80 29.2% 35 20.6% 31 35.2%

No 154 84.6% 194 70.8% 135 79.4% 57 64.8%

Total 182 100.0% 274 100.0% 170 100.0% 88 100.0%

International* Yes 40 21.6% 91 32.4% 80 46.8% 37 39.8%

No 145 78.4% 190 67.6% 91 53.2% 56 60.2%

Total 185 100.0% 281 100.0% 171 100.0% 93 100.0%

Other organizations† Yes 16 8.3% 17 6.0% 9 5.2% 3 3.2%

No 176 91.7% 266 94.0% 163 94.8% 90 96.8%




Table 23: Donations to Types of Organizations by Race/Ethnicity

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander


Religious* Yes 246 50.5% 30 75.0% 38 53.5% 47 61.8%

No 241 49.5% 10 25.0% 33 46.5% 29 38.2%

Total 487 100.0% 40 100.0% 71 100.0% 76 100.0%

Combination of needs Yes 209 43.5% 15 39.5% 35 46.1% 37 49.3%

No 271 56.5% 23 60.5% 41 53.9% 38 50.7%

Total 480 100.0% 38 100.0% 76 100.0% 75 100.0%

Basic needs* Yes 301 63.4% 20 51.3% 50 67.6% 35 49.3%

No 174 36.6% 19 48.7% 24 32.4% 36 50.7%

Total 475 100.0% 39 100.0% 74 100.0% 71 100.0%

Health Yes 225 46.3% 14 35.9% 26 34.7% 30 39.5%

No 261 53.7% 25 64.1% 49 65.3% 46 60.5%

Total 486 100.0% 39 100.0% 75 100.0% 76 100.0%

Education Yes 156 32.6% 13 33.3% 25 32.9% 22 28.9%

No 323 67.4% 26 66.7% 51 67.1% 54 71.1%

Total 479 100.0% 39 100.0% 76 100.0% 76 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 152 31.3% 5 12.8% 19 26.8% 20 26.3%

No 334 68.7% 34 87.2% 52 73.2% 56 73.7%

Total 486 100.0% 39 100.0% 71 100.0% 76 100.0%

Art & culture Yes 78 16.1% 4 10.3% 8 10.7% 10 13.2%

No 405 83.9% 35 89.7% 67 89.3% 66 86.8%

Total 483 100.0% 39 100.0% 75 100.0% 76 100.0%


Yes 69 14.3% 5 12.5% 5 7.0% 10 13.2%

No 415 85.7% 35 87.5% 66 93.0% 66 86.8%

Total 484 100.0% 40 100.0% 71 100.0% 76 100.0%


No 350 74.2% 38 97.4% 65 85.5% 59 81.9%

Total 472 100.0% 39 100.0% 76 100.0% 72 100.0%

International Yes 155 32.0% 10 25.6% 28 37.3% 26 34.2%

No 329 68.0% 29 74.4% 47 62.7% 50 65.8%

Total 484 100.0% 39 100.0% 75 100.0% 76 100.0%


No 460 93.9% 37 94.9% 72 94.7% 76 100.0%




Table 24: Donations to Types Organizations by Employment Status



Religious* Yes 194 50.4% 53 72.6% 44 53.7% 83 52.2%

No 191 49.6% 20 27.4% 38 46.3% 76 47.8%

Total 385 100.0% 73 100.0% 82 100.0% 159 100.0%

Combination of needs* Yes 190 49.5% 22 30.6% 31 38.3% 56 36.1%

No 194 50.5% 50 69.4% 50 61.7% 99 63.9%

Total 384 100.0% 72 100.0% 81 100.0% 155 100.0%

Basic needs* Yes 229 60.3% 40 56.3% 61 74.4% 111 72.5%

No 151 39.7% 31 43.7% 21 25.6% 42 27.5%

Total 380 100.0% 71 100.0% 82 100.0% 153 100.0%

Health* Yes 163 42.1% 33 45.8% 29 35.4% 86 53.4%

No 224 57.9% 39 54.2% 53 64.6% 75 46.6%

Total 387 100.0% 72 100.0% 82 100.0% 161 100.0%

Education* Yes 129 33.2% 32 43.8% 17 21.8% 54 35.1%

No 260 66.8% 41 56.2% 61 78.2% 100 64.9%

Total 389 100.0% 73 100.0% 78 100.0% 154 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 115 29.9% 26 35.6% 20 24.4% 56 35.4%

No 269 70.1% 47 64.4% 62 75.6% 102 64.6%

Total 384 100.0% 73 100.0% 82 100.0% 158 100.0%

Art & culture* Yes 60 15.5% 11 15.3% 4 4.9% 35 22.6%

No 328 84.5% 61 84.7% 78 95.1% 120 77.4%

Total 388 100.0% 72 100.0% 82 100.0% 155 100.0%


Yes 51 13.1% 16 21.9% 12 15.4% 21 13.5%

No 337 86.9% 57 78.1% 66 84.6% 135 86.5%

Total 388 100.0% 73 100.0% 78 100.0% 156 100.0%


No 350 74.2% 38 97.4% 65 85.5% 59 81.9%

Total 472 100.0% 39 100.0% 76 100.0% 72 100.0%

International Yes 155 32.0% 10 25.6% 28 37.3% 26 34.2%

No 329 68.0% 29 74.4% 47 62.7% 50 65.8%

Total 484 100.0% 39 100.0% 75 100.0% 76 100.0%


No 366 93.8% 66 91.7% 78 95.1% 152 93.8%

Total 390 100.0% 72 100.0% 82 100.0% 162 100.0%




Table 25: Donations to Types Organizations by Religious Preference

Protestant Catholic Other Christian Other Religions No Religious Preference

Types of Organizations N % N % N % N % N %

Religious* Yes 109 64.5% 112 64.0% 78 63.9% 46 63.0% 20 15.4%

No 60 35.5% 63 36.0% 44 36.1% 27 37.0% 110 84.6%

Total 169 100.0% 175 100.0% 122 100.0% 73 100.0% 130 100.0%

Combination of needs Yes 73 43.7% 90 50.6% 52 44.1% 35 48.6% 46 35.9%

No 94 56.3% 88 49.4% 66 55.9% 37 51.4% 82 64.1%

Total 167 100.0% 178 100.0% 118 100.0% 72 100.0% 128 100.0%

Basic needs* Yes 91 54.5% 105 60.3% 85 72.0% 36 53.7% 86 67.2%

No 76 45.5% 69 39.7% 33 28.0% 31 46.3% 42 32.8%

Total 167 100.0% 174 100.0% 118 100.0% 67 100.0% 128 100.0%

Health Yes 67 39.9% 80 44.0% 55 45.5% 19 26.4% 54 42.2%

No 101 60.1% 102 56.0% 66 54.5% 53 73.6% 74 57.8%

Total 168 100.0% 182 100.0% 121 100.0% 72 100.0% 128 100.0%

Education* Yes 53 32.1% 73 40.8% 30 25.2% 13 17.8% 49 37.7%

No 112 67.9% 106 59.2% 89 74.8% 60 82.2% 81 62.3%

Total 165 100.0% 179 100.0% 119 100.0% 73 100.0% 130 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 53 31.4% 52 29.5% 38 31.4% 15 20.5% 41 31.8%

No 116 68.6% 124 70.5% 83 68.6% 58 79.5% 88 68.2%

Total 169 100.0% 176 100.0% 121 100.0% 73 100.0% 129 100.0%

Art & culture* Yes 18 10.7% 21 11.8% 17 14.0% 17 23.6% 34 26.2%

No 151 89.3% 157 88.2% 104 86.0% 55 76.4% 96 73.8%

Total 169 100.0% 178 100.0% 121 100.0% 72 100.0% 130 100.0%


Yes 33 19.9% 23 12.8% 16 13.2% 7 9.7% 12 9.2%

No 133 80.1% 156 87.2% 105 86.8% 65 90.3% 118 90.8%

Total 166 100.0% 179 100.0% 121 100.0% 72 100.0% 130 100.0%

Preserve environment* Yes 28 16.9% 33 18.6% 21 17.8% 13 19.1% 63 50.8%

No 138 83.1% 144 81.4% 97 82.2% 55 80.9% 61 49.2%

Total 166 100.0% 177 100.0% 118 100.0% 68 100.0% 124 100.0%

International* Yes 50 29.8% 55 30.1% 50 41.0% 34 46.6% 34 27.4%

No 118 70.2% 128 69.9% 72 59.0% 39 53.4% 90 72.6%

Total 168 100.0% 183 100.0% 122 100.0% 73 100.0% 124 100.0%

Other organizations*† Yes 10 5.9% 12 6.5% 7 5.7% 2 2.8% 15 11.5%

No 160 94.1% 172 93.5% 115 94.3% 70 97.2% 115 88.5%

Total 170 100.0% 184 100.0% 122 100.0% 72 100.0% 130 100.0% * Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square.



Table 26: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Respondents Age

Under 40 years old 40 to 64 years old 65 years old and older

Types of Organizations Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

Mean N Std.

Deviation

All organizations $1,536 127 $2866 $1,648 339 $2,392 $1,299 95 $1,908

Secular organizations $1,098 114 $2,449 $1,089 330 1,858 $820 85 $1,338

Religious $1,137 61 $1,683 $1,528 131 $1,937 $1,147 47 $1,768

Combination of needs $556 57 $961 $648 148 $1,433 $564 30 $1,147

Basic needs $233 48 $318 $409 196 $749 $244 48 $356

Health $266 23 $463 $232 154 $559 $163 43 $258

Education $639 33 $903 $432 116 $649 $354 26 $522

Youth & family $105 30 $97 $336 99 $871 $167 21 $241

Art & culture* $1,195 17 $1,761 $199 53 $220 $197 16 $354


$243 21 $162 $405 30 $970 $100 13 $85

Preserve environment $89 22 $112 $165 72 $386 $359 29 $1,142

International $460 30 $1,303 $203 105 $276 $252 24 $440

Other organizations*† $1,371 8 $968 $352 25 $482 $148 2 $207

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using the F-test (ANOVA).


Table 27: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Household Income

Under $50,000 $50,000 but less than

$100,000 $100,000 or more

Types of Organizations Mean N

Std. Deviation

Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

All Organizations $774 121 $1,466 $1,392 165 $2,085 $2,220 170 $2,723

Secular organizations* $439 108 $751 $803 152 $1,583 $1,423 165 $2,002

Religious $984 47 $1,377 $1,353 80 $1,792 $1,603 89 $2,132

Combination of needs* $220 37 $252 $383 64 $510 $866 94 $1,811

Basic needs $184 60 $330 $373 87 $807 $406 96 $655

Health $128 31 $176 $325 57 $679 $223 85 $546

Education $193 25 $303 $393 33 $588 $444 83 $667

Youth & family* $65 31 $94 $141 52 $218 $455 48 $814

Art & culture* $100 17 $120 $134 22 $204 $268 32 $229


$113 14 $79 $360 17 $737 $208 20 $192

Preserve environment $91 31 $149 $138 27 $457 $161 38 $235

International $548 20 $1,469 $235 47 $519 $186 69 $229

Other organizations† $89 3 $118 $277 10 $236 $492 10 $718




Table 28: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Educational Attainment

High School or Less Some College Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or Professional Degree

Types of Organizations Mean N

Std. Deviation

Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

Mean N Std.

Deviation

All organizations* $1,505 144 $2,680 $1,068 234 $1,665 $1,973 143 $2,571 $2,066 72 $3,067

Secular organizations* $1,261 128 $2,768 $733 224 $1,272 $1,149 137 $1,594 $1,178 69 $2,049

Religious* $1,075 52 $1,269 $1,021 84 $1,531 $1,568 80 $2,112 $1,968 35 $2,261

Combination of needs* $1,339 48 $2,424 $307 94 $459 $536 66 $871 $523 31 $632

Basic needs $307 61 $646 $314 132 $669 $395 72 $454 $401 45 $743

Health $252 42 $685 $228 93 $424 $161 54 $334 $257 35 $635

Education $522 33 $887 $449 65 $723 $417 50 $436 $459 30 $725

Youth & family $275 29 $817 $163 70 $241 $335 43 $588 $492 15 $1,689

Art & culture* $1,117 19 $1,659 $145 20 $199 $181 33 223 $262 16 $374


$119 12 $82 $234 24 $634 $412 25 $872 $151 8 $86

Preserve environment $103 16 $167 $145 60 $265 $351 28 $1,219 $208 20 $324

International $190 24 $359 $165 66 $264 $406 52 $1.012 $234 24 $315

Other organizations† $862 15 $879 $325 12 $541 $277 7 $177 $819 2 $1,574




Table 29: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Race/Ethnicity


Types of Organizations Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

All organizations* $1,711 382 $2,604 $1,618 34 $2,372 $1,078 64 $1,670 $618 62 $540

Secular organizations* $1,197 357 $2,169 $727 34 $1,285 $491 62 $697 $401 56 $294

Religious* $1,583 143 $2,022 $1,567 19 $1,884 $1,185 33 $1,684 $499 32 $361

Combination of needs $746 155 $1,550 $473 13 $194 $472 22 $656 $179 31 $174

Basic needs $377 206 $691 $473 14 $678 $150 34 $152 $225 24 $193

Health $250 152 $575 $209 12 $187 $132 19 $405 $59 21 $47

Education $547 109 $787 $256 11 $317 $207 20 $273 $335 11 $314

Youth & family*† $241 103 $574 $1,281 3 $665 $162 17 $111 $93 15 $81

Art &culture† $539 55 $1,085 $265 4 $378 $79 7 $21 $113 10 $103

Neighborhood & community† $311 43 $811 $50 5 $0 $208 4 $162 $345 6 $243

Preserve environment† $240 83 $719 $100 0 $0 $69 11 $30 $76 8 $24

International $312 101 $773 $132 8 $188 $105 27 $100 $160 7 $91

Other organizations† $726 23 $852 $500 2 $0 $109 3 $124 $500 0 $0

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using the F-test (ANOVA). † Caution should be used due to the small number of cases.


Table 30: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Employment Status


Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

Mean N Std.

Deviation Mean N

Std. Deviation

All organizations* $1,752 322 $2,643 $1,460 60 $2,356 $942 60 $2,289 $1,233 120 $1,771

Secular organizations $1,200 305 $2,171 $722 60 $1,589 $626 55 $1,564 $900 109 $1,416

Religious $1,424 139 $1,872 $1,529 27 $1,970 $1,189 19 $1,954 $1,042 48 $1,640

Combination of needs $682 157 $1,448 $394 19 $678 $510 18 $1,029 $495 31 $1,105

Basic needs $368 165 $579 $282 34 $783 $241 31 $571 $343 69 $718

Health $240 127 $552 $139 27 $432 $163 16 $442 $260 47 $436

Education $542 98 $796 $304 26 $444 $394 13 $394 $454 30 $651

Youth & family $303 81 $669 $222 24 $250 $387 15 $1,669 $138 33 $203

Art & culture† $568 50 $1,121 $108 10 $250 $108 4 $64 $206 21 $334

Neighborhood & community $370 33 $775 $295 15 $760 $84 8 $105 $93 13 $83

Preserve environment $127 52 $209 $100 12 $113 $92 10 $70 $340 45 $1,001

International $301 91 $790 $137 20 $87 $122 19 $112 $208 33 $379

Other organizations† $740 21 $814 $470 6 $759 $114 4 $90 $231 4 $223




Table 31: Mean and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated by Religious Preference


Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

All organizations* $1,845 137 $2,353 $1,031 150 $1,942 $1,990 98 $2,803 $1,903 57 $2,780 $1,337 106 $2,620

Secular organizations* $912 130 $1,443 $707 137 $1,218 $1,084 92 $1,949 $1,680 45 $2,853 $1,253 106 $2,617

Religious* $1,834 73 $1,977 $664 86 $1,266 $2,228 42 $2,278 $1,085 31 $1,801 $1,000 9 $770

Combination of needs* $376 60 $750 $360 59 $541 $486 41 $888 $2,028 21 $3,329 $724 40 $933

Basic needs* $264 67 $345 $268 71 $462 $532 51 $818 $724 21 $1,226 $232 71 $617

Health $163 47 $406 $146 51 $165 $262 44 $681 $620 12 $1,047 $223 42 $487

Education $548 43 $841 $392 49 $530 $356 22 $438 $459 7 $539 $596 39 $885

Youth & family† $282 39 $559 $228 45 $947 $443 29 $874 $442 3 $737 $95 32 $155

Art & culture* $109 14 $146 $240 14 $240 $199 14 $189 $156 15 $195 $892 27 $1,457

Neighborhood & community† $228 26 $213 $127 19 $103 $715 9 $1,460 $82 3 $82 $358 9 $1,026

Preserve environment $389 22 $1,295 $255 28 $415 $142 14 $619 $97 7 $218 $111 47 $143

International* $561 34 $1,243 $95 38 $111 $184 39 $188 $116 13 $121 $193 29 $282

Other organizations† $226 6 $230 $380 8 $644 $457 5 $626 $200 2 $0 $931 13 $918




Section 3: Motivations for Giving The following section discusses motivations for giving to charitable organizations.

“Now I would like to ask you about your motivations for giving to a non-profit/charitable organization. I will read you some reasons people give for donating to charities. Please tell me if the reason is a major or minor motivation

for your giving in 2009. How much of a motivation is…”

More than two-thirds of respondents said ―giving back‖ (69%) and ―directly helping‖ (67%) were major motivations for donating to charitable organizations. More than one-half of residents felt being asked by an employer (55%), friend (52%) or celebrity (57%) were minor motivations (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations‡

‡ Indiana Gives 2008 (page 25) was used as a model for reporting the major and minor motivations in this report to ensure

comparability.

57.0%

55.1%

52.4%

52.9%

44.0%

39.8%

36.8%

36.1%

34.3%

23.9%

23.2%

3.0%

10.0%

31.0%

31.3%

34.4%

35.9%

43.6%

47.3%

50.7%

66.7%

69.0%

Being asked (celebrity)

Employer asked

Being asked (friend/associate)

Tax benefit

Family tradition

Reciprocity

Charities more effective

Equity

Religious belief

Directly helping

Giving back

Major motivation

Minor motivation


Motivations by Demographic Characteristics

The tables describing the relationships between motivations for donating to charities and respondent demographic characteristics display major and minor motivation percentages separately. Respondents who indicated that a potential reason for giving was not a major or minor motivation were not included in the tables, so the percentages sum to less than 100 percent.

13

Younger residents (under 40 years old) were more likely than those over 40 years of age to say that directly helping individuals meet their material needs was a major motivation for giving (Table 32).

Tax benefits for giving to charitable organizations were a major motivation for a higher percentage of respondents under 40 (45%) than they were for respondents aged 40 to 64 (27%) and those over 65 years of age (28%).

Respondents 40-64 years of age were less likely than both younger and older respondents to say that family tradition was a major motivation for giving (29% vs. 43% and 39% respectively).

Respondents over 65 were the most likely to indicate that a major motivation for giving was that charities are more effective in providing services than government or private businesses (48% compared to 42%-44%).

Tax benefits were more likely to be a major motivation for respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more. Thirty-seven percent of respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more cited tax benefits as a major motivation, compared with 31-33 percent of respondents with household incomes less than $100,000 (Table 33).

Respondents with household incomes of less than $50,000 were more inclined than other income groups to say that family tradition (41%) and reciprocity (49%) were major motivations for giving.

Compared to respondents in all other educational categories, respondents with a high school degree or less were the most likely to state that reciprocity (47%), family tradition (39%), being asked by an employer (19%), and being asked by a celebrity (8%) were major motivations for giving to charitable organizations.

Tax benefits were less important for those with the highest and lowest educational levels. Twenty-nine percent of those with a high school degree or less, and 20 percent of those with a graduate or professional degree cited tax benefits as a major

13

In Appendix C, Appendix Tables 29 through 38 show motivations by demographic characteristics with major and minor motivations collapsed into one category.

Of all the demographic groups, Hispanic respondents were the most likely to say that “giving back to society” was a major motivation (81%).

“Being asked to give by a celebrity” was the least popular major motivation for several different demographic groups, including respondents with a graduate or professional degree (1%), retired respondents (1%), Whites (2%), and Protestants (2%). None of the respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more cited celebrity requests as a major motivation to make a donation.


motivation for giving, compared with 35 percent of those with some college or a bachelor’s degree (Table 34).

Respondents with a graduate or professional degree were more highly motivated by equity (feeling that those with more should help those with less) than were respondents with lower levels of educational attainment.

Directly helping individuals meet their material needs was more important for Hispanics and African Americans than it was for Whites respondents and Asian and Pacific Islander respondents. Three quarters of Hispanics and 72 percent of African Americans cited directly helping as a major motivation, compared with 67 percent of Whites and 49 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders (Table 35).

Asian and Pacific Islanders and African Americans were more likely than Whites and Hispanics to say that being asked to give by an employer was a major motivation for giving to charitable organizations.

White respondents and Asian and Pacific Islander respondents were less likely than African Americans and Hispanics to state that tax benefits were a major motivation for giving.

There was a wide range of opinions across racial and ethnic groups regarding motivations stemming from the belief that charities are more effective at providing public services than government or private businesses. Fifty-five percent of Hispanics cited this as a major motivation, compared with 46 percent of Whites, 35 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders, and 15 percent of African American.

Asian and Pacific Islanders were more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to indicate that religious belief (79%), family tradition (64%) and reciprocity (59%) were major motivations for giving.

Seven of the eleven motivations for giving were more important for female respondents than they were for male respondents: being asked by a friend or associate, being asked by a celebrity, giving back to society, being asked by an employer, religious belief, family tradition, and reciprocity (Table 36).

Five of the eleven motivations were more important for respondents who were not employed than they were for respondents in the other employment categories: directly helping individuals meet their material needs, being asked to give by a celebrity, being asked to give by an employer, equity, and because charities provide public services more effectively than governments or private business (Table 37).

Not surprisingly, tax benefits were less important for respondents who were either retired or employed part-time.

Directly helping individuals meet their material needs was more important for respondents whose religious preference was categorized as ―Other Christian‖ or Protestant (Table 38).

Respondents in the ―Other Christian‖ category were also more motivated than those in other groups to give because charities provide public services more effectively than governments or private business.


Catholics were more likely than any other religious category to state that reciprocity (49%), tax benefits (45%), and being asked by a celebrity (8%) were major motivations for giving.

Respondents whose religious preference fell in the ―other religions‖ category were more likely to state that religious belief was a major motivation for their charitable giving (72% compared to 60%-62% for Protestants, Catholics and other Christians, and 12% for those with no religious preference).


Table 32: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Age

Under 40 Years Old

40 to 64 Years Old

65 Years Old and Older

Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) *

74.3% 22.1% 65.4% 24.9% 62.8% 19.8%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)*

36.6% 48.4% 30.7% 56.9% 28.1% 48.8%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 4.1% 60.8% 2.0% 60.2% 2.4% 48.8%

Giving back (giving back to society)* 61.5% 25.2% 72.9% 22.4% 59.3% 28.8%

Tax benefits* 45.1% 43.8% 26.9% 57.2% 28.0% 50.8%

Employer asked* 11.0% 49.3% 10.8% 61.7% 7.4% 40.5%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)

48.3% 30.6% 44.1% 39.5% 54.1% 31.1%

Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can)*

44.1% 29.4% 41.5% 40.8% 48.3% 32.8%

Religious belief 55.0% 28.9% 49.2% 35.8% 52.4% 30.6%

Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)*

43.1% 36.6% 29.4% 48.1% 38.5% 37.7%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family)

48.0% 27.0% 32.4% 44.0% 26.2% 41.0%

Number of cases 136- 153 402-413 117-123


NOTE: Table data reflects the percent of respondents saying that this was a major or minor motivation for giving (as opposed to neither).

Table 33: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Household Income

Under $50,000

$50,000 but less than

$100,000 $100,000 or more

Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)

65.1% 21.4% 72.2% 21.9% 61.8% 28.3%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)

36.6% 47.9% 32.3% 55.9% 29.5% 51.6%

Being asked to give by a celebrity* 5.8% 59.1% 6.9% 56.1% 0.0% 65.4%

Giving back (giving back to society) 62.2% 26.7% 70.9% 24.9% 74.1% 19.6%

Tax benefits* 32.6% 47.0% 31.4% 57.3% 36.5% 53.6%

Employer asked 12.7% 47.0% 9.7% 58.6% 8.4% 62.3%


54.7% 28.5% 46.6% 39.7% 47.4% 33.9%

Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can)

40.6% 37.7% 46.0% 33.7% 39.9% 46.3%

Religious belief 52.1% 28.9% 54.7% 31.1% 52.9% 35.1%


40.8% 35.2% 33.3% 42.3% 28.3% 53.4%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family)*

48.6% 25.4% 36.5% 44.4% 28.0% 46.2%

Number of cases 136- 153 402-413 117-123


NOTE: Table data reflects the percent of respondents saying that this was a major or minor motivation for giving (as opposed to

neither).


Table 34: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment

High School or Less

Some College Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional

Degree

Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)* 69.8% 14.8% 64.8% 25.2% 69.5% 26.9% 63.7% 28.6%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 29.1% 50.8% 32.6% 51.4% 27.8% 55.6% 32.6% 55.4%

Being asked to give by a celebrity* 7.9% 50.3% 2.1% 56.7% 0.0% 64.5% 1.1% 58.1%

Giving back (giving back to society) 61.8% 26.6% 71.2% 22.8% 73.6% 19.6% 68.8% 24.7%

Tax benefits* 28.8% 51.1% 35.1% 49.6% 35.2% 55.2% 19.6% 59.8%

Employer asked* 18.7% 45.5% 7.3% 59.0% 4.2% 63.3% 11.8% 49.5%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)* 48.4% 39.9% 40.9% 40.9% 50.0% 31.7% 60.9% 23.9% Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can) 42.7% 36.0% 44.0% 38.3% 48.5% 35.3% 34.1% 40.7%

Religious belief 52.6% 31.6% 50.9% 33.7% 52.0% 38.6% 48.9% 33.7% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)* 39.2% 34.4% 36.9% 39.4% 28.7% 59.1% 29.0% 48.4%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family)* 46.6% 28.6% 30.3% 42.6% 36.4% 47.9% 29.0% 43.0%

Number of cases 173-190 270-283 163-171 93-91

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square. NOTE: Table data reflects the percent of respondents saying that this was a major or minor motivation for giving (as opposed to neither).


Table 35: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity

White

Black/African American

Hispanic




Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)* 27.1% 55.4% 46.2% 35.9% 30.7% 54.7% 52.8% 37.5%


Giving back (giving back to society)* 68.4% 23.4% 62.5% 22.5% 81.3% 17.3% 71.4% 27.0%

Tax benefits* 29.0% 57.1% 38.5% 38.5% 35.1% 51.4% 31.4% 40.0%

Employer asked* 7.7% 55.6% 20.0% 50.0% 12.2% 64.9% 25.0% 41.7%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less) 45.7% 36.4% 36.8% 50.0% 57.3% 36.0% 56.3% 29.6% Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can)* 46.2% 34.3% 15.0% 77.5% 54.8% 32.9% 34.7% 37.3%

Religious belief* 45.6% 35.9% 64.1% 35.9% 52.0% 29.3% 78.9% 17.1% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)* 26.7% 46.8% 57.5% 37.5% 32.0% 46.7% 63.6% 32.5%


Number of cases 470-487 38-40 69-75 63-77 * Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square. NOTE: Table data reflects the percent of respondents saying that this was a major or minor motivation for giving (as opposed to neither).


Table 36: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Gender

Male

Female

Major Minor Major Minor

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) 65.2% 22.2% 67.5% 24.5%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)* 22.7% 58.8% 35.0% 49.1%

Being asked to give by a celebrity* 0.4% 58.8% 4.0% 56.1%

Giving back (giving back to society)* 63.3% 28.8% 71.8% 20.6%

Tax benefits 35.6% 50.2% 29.3% 54.1%

Employer asked* 7.5% 50.6% 11.2% 57.3%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less) 44.3% 37.6% 48.7% 35.2% Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can) 45.9% 37.8% 42.4% 36.3%

Religious belief* 42.9% 38.2% 54.5% 32.3% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)* 24.1% 52.3% 39.3% 40.1%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family)* 27.1% 45.3% 39.8% 37.3%

Number of cases 229-238 489-509




Table 37: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Employment Status

Full-time

Part-time

Not Employed Retired



Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 30.8% 54.6% 23.3% 54.8% 37.0% 43.2% 28.5% 53.8%


Giving back (giving back to society)* 73.9% 20.6% 73.0% 9.5% 60.0% 31.3% 62.3% 29.9%

Tax benefits* 36.6% 52.7% 29.2% 41.7% 35.5% 50.0% 22.6% 54.2%

Employer asked* 8.7% 61.7% 17.8% 43.8% 19.5% 54.5% 4.4% 45.6%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)* 46.7% 39.7% 47.2% 20.8% 53.2% 27.8% 50.3% 37.3% Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can)* 41.1% 42.4% 31.9% 26.4% 62.2% 21.6% 48.7% 33.1%

Religious belief 51.2% 33.2% 61.6% 30.1% 49.4% 31.6% 46.3% 38.8% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did) 33.7% 45.8% 42.5% 30.1% 35.0% 42.5% 36.3% 42.5%


Number of cases 371-389 63-73 74-81 154-161



Table 38: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Religious Preference

Protestant

Catholic

Other Christian Other Religions No Religious Preference

Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)* 71.5% 20.0% 66.9% 27.6% 74.2% 23.3% 69.0% 26.8% 61.4% 23.6%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 28.1% 54.5% 37.9% 46.2% 34.7% 52.5% 22.1% 54.4% 28.2% 54.2%

Being asked to give by a celebrity* 1.8% 64.3% 7.8% 52.5% 0.0% 62.5% 6.8% 49.3% 0.0% 56.6%

Giving back (giving back to society) 70.7% 23.2% 69.0% 20.7% 65.0% 25.8% 71.8% 26.8% 66.4% 26.4%

Tax benefits* 26.4% 58.3% 44.6% 42.9% 30.6% 54.5% 30.6% 50.0% 22.9% 61.1%

Employer asked* 5.5% 51.8% 11.3% 57.1% 7.4% 61.2% 17.8% 45.2% 9.2% 56.9% For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less) 51.2% 35.1% 46.6% 33.1% 49.6% 34.7% 29.6% 46.5% 46.9% 36.9% Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can)* 47.2% 38.0% 37.7% 41.1% 54.9% 30.1% 51.4% 30.0% 31.5% 46.9%

Religious belief* 61.5% 30.2% 59.8% 29.3% 60.8% 29.2% 72.2% 18.1% 11.6% 56.6% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)* 35.3% 46.1% 41.8% 40.2% 25.0% 53.3% 50.0% 27.8% 23.1% 47.7% Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family)* 35.5% 42.6% 48.9% 29.9% 31.1% 46.7% 23.6% 41.7% 29.5% 38.8%

Number of cases 163-169 164-184 113-121 68-72 125-131



Section 4: Destination of Giving The following section describes the destination of charitable giving for residents in the Sacramento region as well as the importance placed on giving to local charities. Results describe the average (mean) percentage of donations to local, state, national and international organizations.

“Thinking about your charitable donations in 2009, what percentage of your total

charitable donations went to organizations?”

The majority of donations went to charitable organizations in the Sacramento region (Figure 13). An overwhelming majority of respondents (91%) felt it was (very and somewhat) important to donate to local charities (Figure 14).

Figure 13: Average Percentage of Donation by Destination

How important is it to you to donate to local charitable organizations?

Figure 14: Importance of Donation to Local Organizations

62.8%11.2%

8.9%

6.8%

10.2%

Local

State

National

International

Don't Know /Refused

53.2%38.1%

6.5%

2.1%

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Somewhat Unimportant

Very Unimportant


Destination of Donation by Demographic Characteristics

Some of the analysis by demographic characteristics for this section produces expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test, and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

14

Respondents aged 40 to 64 had the highest average percentage of donations to local charities. Older residents were more likely to donate to national organizations while younger residents were more inclined to give money to international organizations (Table 39). More respondents aged 40 to 64 (95%) stated it was important to donate to local organizations compared with younger residents (85%) and older residents (83%) (Table 46).

Respondents with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 were the most likely to have donated to local organizations (Table 40). They were also the most likely to say that it was very important to donate to local charities (Table 47).

On average 15 percent of donations made by respondents who have lived in the Sacramento region for less than 10 years went to state wide charities, compared to nine percent of donations for respondents who have lived in the region for 11 to 30 years and 12 percent for those who have lived in the region for more than 30 years (Table 41).

Compared with respondents in all other educational categories, respondents with a graduate or professional degree gave more to international organizations (Table 42).

A larger share of Hispanic respondents’ donations (80%) went to local organizations compared to Whites (64%), African Americans (62%), and Asians (53%) (Table 43). African American respondents (85%) were the least likely to state donating to local organizations was important (Table 48).

Males were more likely to give to local charities than females (Table 44). Females were slightly more likely to report that donating to local charities was important (Table 50).

A larger portion of the donations made by full-time employees went to local organizations. Retired respondents were the most likely to give to national organizations (Table 45). Retired respondents were the least likely to say that donating to local organizations was important (88%) when compared to full-time (92%), part-time (93%), and not employed (95%) respondents (Table 49).

14

Tables 46-51 all contain small cell sizes (less than 5), caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

Overall, Hispanic respondents gave the highest average percentage of their donations to charities in the Sacramento Region (80%).

Respondents aged 65 years or older gave the smallest percentage of their donations to local charities (49%). Respondents aged 65 years or older were also the least likely to say that donating to local charities is “very important” (40%).


Other Christians and those with no religious preference were the least likely to state that donating to local charities was important (Table 51).

Table 39: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Age


Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

In the Sacramento Region* 57.5 153 41.96 67.8 414 38.22 48.8 124 44.11

Outside the Sacramento region, but in California

11.7 153 23.18 10.3 414 22.63 16.3 124 31.32

Outside California, but in the US*

7.2 153 20.60 8.6 414 20.59 14.7 124 29.21

Outside the US* 14.5 153 26.51 4.9 414 14.93 5.6 124 18.04


NOTE: Means do not add up to 100 percent due to don’t know and refused being excluded from analysis.

Table 40: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Household Income


$100,000 $100,000 or more


In the Sacramento Region* 57.62 143 43.64 71.85 190 36.60 63.75 191 37.89


10.98 143 23.04 9.10 190 22.87 11.91 191 21.83

Outside California, but in the US

7.64 143 20.25 6.66 190 18.66 10.29 191 22.03

Outside the US 6.32 143 16.76 9.55 190 22.65 7.90 191 20.28



Table 41: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Years of Residency

10 years or less 11 to 30 years 31 or more years


In the Sacramento Region 58.43 174 41.12 64.22 318 40.95 64.08 263 40.33

Outside the Sacramento region, but in California*

14.76 174 26.01 8.83 318 20.35 11.59 263 26.63


10.68 174 24.31 7.97 318 20.49 8.95 263 21.87

Outside the US* 8.02 174 20.52 8.11 318 20.81 4.26 263 13.04




Table 42: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Educational Attainment

High School or Less Some College Bachelor’s Degree

Graduate or Professional Degree

Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD Mean N SD

In the Sacramento Region

65.28 192 43.25 63.11 283 39.93 65.31 171 38.27 56.63 93 40.41


8.61 192 23.63 13.23 283 25.75 11.14 171 23.39 11.53 93 22.28


8.21 192 22.36 9.25 283 22.03 9.14 171 20.99 10.13 93 23.34

Outside the US* 3.07 192 12.51 7.09 283 18.78 8.67 171 19.91 10.58 93 24.18

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using the F-test (ANOVA). NOTE: Means do not add up to 100 percent due to don’t know and refused being excluded from analysis .

Table 43: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander


In the Sacramento Region*

64.19 491 40.92 62.08 39 37.26 79.51 76 31.97 53.11 76 42.95

Outside the

Sacramento region, but in California

11.14 491 24.46 19.72 39 31.92 6.73 76 17.71 10.38 76 22.43

Outside California, but

in the US* 10.03 491 23.71 6.83 39 17.06 5.08 76 15.33 3.09 76 13.12

Outside the US 5.65 491 17.29 11.37 39 28.37 5.90 76 17.80 8.71 76 15.46



Table 44: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Gender

Males Females

Mean Number

Standard Deviation

Mean Number Standard Deviation

In the Sacramento Region* 71.7 239 37.9 58.8 514 41.4

Outside the Sacramento Region, but in California*

7.6 239 19.4 12.8 514 25.9

Outside California, but in the US 9.4 239 23.5 8.7 514 21.2

Outside the US* 4.5 239 14.9 7.8 514 19.9



Table 45: Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts by Employment Status



In the Sacramento

Region* 68.36 390 36.87 55.51 73 43.50 62.23 82 43.50 52.51 162 44.14

Outside the Sacramento region,

but in California

10.76 390 22.33 10.73 73 23.77 8.26 82 22.62 14.90 162 29.83

Outside California, but in the US*

7.45 390 18.86 6.22 73 17.18 10.07 82 24.79 14.72 162 28.80

Outside the US* 6.36 390 17.23 12.90 73 23.80 6.82 82 19.94 5.55 162 17.84




Table 46: Importance of Donating Locally by Age*†


N % N % N %

Very Important 86 56.2% 221 55.0% 47 39.5%

Somewhat Important 44 28.8% 162 40.3% 52 43.7%


19 12.4% 14 3.5% 14 11.8%

Very Unimportant 4 2.6% 5 1.2% 6 5.0%

Total 153 100.0% 402 100.0% 119 100.0%



Table 47: Importance of Donating Locally by Household Income*†

Under $50,000

$50,000 but less than $100,000

$100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Very Important 66 49.3% 116 61.1% 89 47.8%

Somewhat Important 53 39.6% 57 30.0% 82 44.1%


12 9.0% 15 7.9% 9 4.8%

Very Unimportant 3 2.2% 2 1.1% 6 3.2%

Total 134 100.0% 190 100.0% 186 100.0%



Table 48: Importance of Donating Locally by Race/Ethnicity*†

White

Black/ African American

Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

N % N % N % N %

Very Important 244 51.4% 15 38.5% 48 64.9% 46 60.5%

Somewhat Important

181 38.1% 18 46.2% 23 31.1% 26 34.2%


37 7.8% 6 15.4% 1 1.4% 4 5.3%

Very Unimportant 13 2.7% 0 .0% 2 2.7% 0 .0%

Total 475 100.0% 39 100.0% 74 100.0% 76 100.0%



Table 49: Importance of Donating Locally by Employment Status*†


N % N % N % N %

Very Important 198 52.2% 53 72.6% 47 58.0% 69 43.9%

Somewhat Important

149 39.3% 15 20.5% 30 37.0% 69 43.9%


25 6.6% 4 5.5% 4 4.9% 12 7.6%

Very Unimportant 7 1.8% 1 1.4% 0 .0% 7 4.5%

Total 379 100.0% 73 100.0% 81 100.0% 157 100.0%




Table 50: Importance of Donating Locally by Gender*†

Male Female

N % N %

Very Important 111 48.1% 280 55.7%

Somewhat Important 91 39.4% 188 37.4%

Somewhat Unimportant 20 8.7% 28 5.6%

Very Unimportant 9 3.9% 7 1.4%

Total 231 100.0% 503 100.0%



Table 51: Importance of Donating Locally by Religious Preference*†


N % N % N % N % N %

Very Important 85 51.5% 92 50.3% 66 55.9% 50 68.5% 62 51.2%

Somewhat Important 71 43.0% 78 42.6% 32 27.1% 17 23.3% 45 37.2%


8 4.8% 8 4.4% 16 13.6% 5 6.8% 11 9.1%

Very Unimportant 1 0.6% 5 2.7% 4 3.4% 1 1.4% 3 2.5%

Total 165 100.0% 183 100.0% 118 100.0% 73 100.0% 121 100.0%

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square. † Caution should be used due to the small number of cases.


Section 5: Method of Giving

This section concentrates on the method people use to donate to charitable organizations. Respondents could choose more than one answer so percentages are based on the number of respondents who answered the questions rather than the number of answers given for the question. There seemed to be some confusion from respondents regarding the intent of the question, which resulted in a large number of responses in the ―other‖ category. Please see Appendix C (Appendix Table 22) for a listing of responses for the other category. The bivariate analysis by demographic characteristics describes the percentage of respondents who indicated they used the method to donate to charitable organizations.

“I am going to read ways that people make their donations. Please tell me during 2009, did you or anyone in your household make a donation…” (Select all that apply)

Donations through religious organizations (48%) were the most popular method of giving, followed by mail requests (40%) and street collection (34%). Respondents’ donations to charitable organizations through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and adding to one’s wireless bill were less common (Figure 15).

Figure 15: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations15

NOTE: Respondents could give more than one answer. Total does not add up to 100.

15

Please see Appendix C, Appendix Table 23 for a listing of other methods of giving to charitable organizations.

14.5%

39.9%

15.0%

13.8%

19.9%

47.8%

33.8%

4.5%

5.0%

18.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Payroll deductions

Mail request

Telephone request

TV or radio request

Online

Religious organization

Street collection

Social media

Texting/Wireless bill

Other


Method of Giving by Demographic Characteristics

The following results contain tables and analysis by demographic characteristics in which one or more cells have expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

16

Respondents 65 years old and older were more likely to donate in response to a mail or telephone request than any other age categories; however, they were less likely to donate through payroll deductions. Not surprisingly younger residents were more likely to use social media or add money to a wireless bill than the other age groups (Table 52).

Twenty-eight percent of respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more made their donations online, compared to 18 percent for the other two income categories (Table 53).

As educational attainment increases so did the percentage of respondents who donated online (Table 54).

Twenty-eight percent of Asians donated through payroll deductions compared to 13 percent of Whites, 10 percent of African Americans, and 12 percent of Hispanics. Hispanics were the most likely to donate through a request from TV or radio. Two-thirds of African Americans (67%) donated through religious organizations compared to Whites (46%), Hispanics (41%) and Asians (62%) (Table 55).

Residents living in the Sacramento region for 11 to 30 years were the most likely to donate through payroll deduction. Twenty-six percent of respondents who have lived in the region for 10 years or less donated online compared to 19 percent of those living in the region for 11 to 30 years and 16 percent of those living in the region for 31 or more years (Table 56).

Respondents who were employed full-time were more likely to donate through payroll deductions than any other employment category. More than one-half of retired residents (55%) donated in response to a mailed request compared to 39 percent of those who were not employed, 37 percent of full-time employees, and 24 percent of part-time employees. Residents who were not employed were more likely to donate in response to a TV or radio request than any other employment category. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents who were employed part-time donated

16

Tables 52-55, 57, and 58 all contain small cell sizes (less than 5); caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

Of all the demographic characteristics that were analyzed, respondents who attend religious services once a week were the most likely to state they donate through their religious organization (77%) and African Americans were the second most likely to indicate they donate through their religious organizations (67%).

Social media was the least frequent donation method for respondents with household incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 (1%), those with a high school or less (1%). African Americans did not cite social media as a method used to make a donation.


through religious organizations compared to 45 percent of full-time employees, 52 percent of those who were not employed, and 45 percent of retirees (Table 57).

Respondents who stated they never attend church were the most likely to donate on-line and the least likely to donate through religious organizations. Over three-quarters (77%) of respondents who attend church every week donated through religious organizations compared to 57 percent for those who attend a few times a month, 23 percent for those who seldom attend, and 19 percent for those who never attend (Table 58).

Table 52: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Age

Under 40 Years Old 40 to 64 years old 65 and Older

N % N % N %

Payroll deduction*† 29 19.0% 74 17.9% 4 3.2%

Request by mail* 30 19.6% 179 43.2% 72 58.5%

Request by phone* 19 12.4% 58 14.0% 32 25.8%

Request by TV or radio 19 12.4% 54 13.0% 17 13.7%

Donating online 31 20.3% 94 22.7% 17 13.7%

Through religious organization 73 47.7% 195 47.1% 67 54.0%

Street collection 53 34.6% 145 34.9% 35 28.2%

Social media (Facebook/Twitter)* 14 9.2% 15 3.6% 5 4.0%

Texting added to phone bill† 9 5.8% 21 5.1% 2 1.6%

Other 29 19.0% 72 17.3% 22 17.9%

Total 153-154 -- 414-415 -- 123-124 --


† Caution should be used due to the small number of cases. NOTE: Respondents could give more than one answer. Total does not add up to 100.

Table 53: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Household Income

Under $50,000 $50,000 but less than $100,000

$100,000 or More

N % N % N %

Payroll deduction 19 13.4% 23 12.0% 36 18.8%

Request by mail 56 39.4% 79 41.6% 74 38.7%

Request by phone 20 14.0% 27 14.2% 36 18.8%


Donating online* 26 18.2% 35 18.4% 54 28.1%



Social media (Facebook/Twitter)* † 15 10.6% 2 1.1% 13 6.8%

Texting added to phone bill† 3 2.1% 12 6.3% 13 6.8%

Other* 18 12.6% 32 16.8% 54 28.3%

Total 142-143 -- 190 -192 -- 191-192 --




Table 54: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment

High school or less Some College Bachelor's Degree Graduate or

Professional Degree

N % N % N % N %

Payroll deduction 20 10.4% 49 17.3% 24 14.0% 14 15.1%

Request by mail * 60 31.3% 121 42.8% 71 41.5% 42 44.7%

Request by phone 29 15.1% 36 12.7% 25 14.6% 23 24.5%

Request by TV or radio 18 9.4% 42 14.9% 28 16.3% 13 14.0%

Donating online* 22 11.4% 50 17.7% 43 25.1% 35 37.6%

Through religious organization 94 48.7% 126 44.7% 91 53.2% 44 46.8%

Street collection 70 36.5% 107 37.9% 51 29.7% 25 26.6%

Social media (Facebook/Twitter)* †

2 1.0% 27 9.5% 3 1.8% 3 3.2%

Texting added to phone bill† 7 3.6% 15 5.3% 14 8.2% 2 2.2%

Other 32 16.7% 47 16.6% 43 25.1% 17 18.1%

Total 192-193 -- 282 -283 -- 171-172 -- 93-94 --




Table 55: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic


N % N % N % N %

Payroll deduction*† 63 12.9% 4 10.3% 9 12.0% 21 27.6%

Request by mail 204 41.5% 9 22.5% 28 36.8% 28 36.8%

Request by phone 83 16.9% 8 20.5% 8 10.5% 6 7.8%

Request by TV or radio*† 68 13.8% 3 7.5% 21 28.0% 8 10.5%

Donating online*† 124 25.3% 1 2.5% 10 13.3% 2 2.6%

Through religious organization* 224 45.7% 26 66.7% 31 40.8% 47 61.8%


Social media (Facebook/Twitter)*†

16 3.3% 0 0.0% 5 6.6% 9 11.7%

Texting added to phone bill*† 24 4.9% 4 10.0% 8 10.5% 0 0.0%

Other* 63 12.8% 4 10.0% 9 12.0% 21 27.6%

Total 490-491 -- 39-40 -- 75-76 -- 76-77 --




Table 56: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Residency

10 years or less 11 to 30 years Over 30 years

N % N % N %

Payroll deduction* 16 9.2% 56 17.7% 37 14.1%

Request by mail 58 33.3% 128 40.3% 116 44.1%

Request by phone 19 10.9% 53 16.7% 42 16.0%


Donating online* 46 26.4% 60 18.9% 43 16.3%



Social media (Facebook/Twitter) 7 4.0% 10 3.2% 17 6.5%

Texting added to phone bill 13 7.5% 11 3.5% 15 5.7%

Other 29 16.7% 51 16.0% 61 23.3%

Total 174 -- 317-318 -- 262-263 --



Table 57: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Employment Status


N % N % N % N %

Payroll deduction* 83 21.3% 8 11.1% 8 9.8% 5 3.1%

Request by mail* 146 37.4% 17 23.6% 32 39.0% 89 54.9%

Request by phone* 52 13.3% 9 12.3% 14 17.1% 37 22.8%


Donating online* 91 23.3% 14 19.4% 10 12.2% 28 17.2%



Social media (Facebook/Twitter) †

22 5.6% 1 1.4% 1 1.2% 9 5.5%


Other 82 21.0% 12 16.7% 15 18.3% 27 16.7%

Total 390 -- 72-73 -- 82 -- 162-163 --




Table 58: Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations by Church Attendance

Once a week Few Times a Month Seldom Never

N % N % N % N %

Payroll deduction* 28 10.0% 16 12.1% 42 26.1% 22 14.0%

Request by mail 105 37.4% 57 42.9% 68 42.0% 61 38.9%

Request by phone 44 15.7% 19 14.3% 27 16.7% 22 14.0%


Donating online* 38 13.5% 20 15.2% 38 23.5% 50 31.8%



Social media (Facebook/Twitter)* †

5 1.8% 0 0.0% 16 9.9% 13 8.3%


Other 47 16.7% 25 18.9% 32 19.8% 33 21.0%

Total 280-281 -- 132-133 -- 161-162 -- 157 --





Section 6: Sources of Information This section discusses respondents’ sources of information about charitable organizations. Respondents could choose more than one answer so the percentages are based on the number of respondents who answered the questions rather than the number of answers given for the question. There seemed to be some confusion from respondents regarding the intent of the question, which resulted in a large ―other‖ category. Please see Appendix C (Appendix Table 24) for a listing of responses for the other category. The bivariate analysis by demographic characteristics describes the percentage of respondents who indicated they used the source for information about charitable organizations.

“Where do you get information about charities before donating? Is it television, radio, newspapers, a charity’s direct mail to you, a charity’s e-mail to you, a charity’s own website, Internet, but not charity’s website, or other?” (Select all that apply)

The most common source of information about charitable organizations was the charity’s direct mail (34%) followed by television (18%) and the internet (not including the charity’s website) (17%). Forty-six percent of respondents choose some other source of information. Some common answers in the other category were through their church, family, friends, and word of mouth (Figure 16).

Figure 16: Sources of Information about Charitable Organizations17

NOTE: Respondents could give more than one answer Total does not add up to 100.

17

Please see Appendix C, Appendix Table 24 for a listing of other sources of information.

18.4%

9.0%

34.2%

5.8%

11.7%

17.4%

45.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Television

Newspapers

Charity's direct mail to you

Charity’s email to you

Charity’s own website

Internet but not charity's website

Other


Sources of Information by Demographic Characteristics

Some of the analysis by demographic characteristics for this section produces expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test, and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

18

Residents under the age of 40 were consistently less likely to have received information about charitable organizations through television (11%), newspapers (3%), and the charity’s direct mail (23%). Very few older respondents used the charity’s own website to get information on charitable organizations (Table 59).

Households with incomes of $100,000 or more were more likely than lower income households to receive information from the charity’s direct email. Respondents with household incomes of less than $50,000 (24%) were more likely to use the internet in general to get information compared to the middle income (14%) or the higher income categories (22%) (Table 60).

Residents with a graduate or professional degree (22%) were more likely to use the charity’s own website as a source of information than any other educational category. Respondents with high school degree or less were the least likely to use the internet in general as a source of information. Nine percent of respondents with a high school degree or less used the internet as a source of information, compared to between 20 and 24 percent for the other educational categories (Table 61).

African American respondents (31%) were more likely to receive information about charitable organizations through the television than Whites (18%), Hispanic (30%), or Asians (13%) (Table 62).

Females were more likely than males to get information about non-profits from television and the charity’s direct mail. In contrast, males were more likely to receive information using the internet (Table 63).

In comparison to other employment categories, retired respondents were the most likely to get information through newspapers. Part-time employees were more likely to receive information though the charity’s direct mail (43%) than full-time (31%), not employed (40%), and retired (41%) respondents. Full-time employees were the most likely to use the internet (both generally or the charity’s own website) (Table 64).

18

Tables 60-62 and 64 all contain small cell sizes (less than 5), caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

Overall, respondents aged 65 years or older were the most likely to receive information about charities through the charities direct mail (50%).

Younger respondents (under 40 years old) (3%) were the least likely to use newspapers as a source of information about charities.


Table 59: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Age

Under 40 years old 40 to 64 years old 65 and older

N % N % N %

Television* 16 10.5% 86 20.7% 25 20.2%

Newspapers* 5 3.3% 42 10.1% 17 13.7%

Charity's direct mail* 35 22.9% 146 35.3% 62 50.4%

Charity's e-mail 6 3.9% 28 6.8% 7 5.6%

Charity's own website* 18 11.8% 57 13.8% 5 4.0%

Internet but not charity's website 46 30.1% 70 16.9% 11 8.9%

Other* 71 46.4% 180 43.5% 51 41.5%

Total 153 -- 414-415 -- 123-124 --

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square. NOTE: Respondents could give more than one answer Total does not add up to 100.

Table 60: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Household Income


$100,000 or More

N % N % N %

Television 29 20.3% 36 18.9% 27 14.1%

Newspapers 9 6.3% 16 8.4% 22 11.5%

Charity's direct mail 53 37.3% 59 31.1% 61 31.8%

Charity's e-mail*† 4 2.8% 7 3.7% 21 11.0%

Charity's own website 15 10.5% 29 15.2% 24 12.6%

Internet but not charity's website* 34 23.8% 27 14.1% 43 22.4%

Other* 52 36.4% 94 49.5% 94 49.2%

Total 142-143 -- 190-191 -- 191-192 --


† Caution should be used due to the small number of cases. NOTE: Respondents could give more than one answer Total does not add up to 100.

Table 61: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment

High School or Less Some College Bachelor's Degree Graduate or

Professional Degree

N % N % N % N %

Television 40 20.8% 56 19.9% 27 15.8% 14 15.1%

Newspapers* 7 3.6% 30 10.6% 16 9.3% 15 16.1%

Charity's direct mail 61 31.8% 102 36.2% 51 29.7% 38 40.4%

Charity's e-mail† 5 2.6% 20 7.1% 15 8.7% 4 4.3%

Charity's own website* 15 7.8% 30 10.6% 22 12.8% 21 22.3%

Internet but not charity's website*

17 8.8% 57 20.1% 35 20.5% 22 23.7%

Other* 84 43.8% 131 46.3% 75 43.9% 46 49.5%

Total 192 -193 -- 282-283 -- 171-172 -- 93-94 --

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square. † Caution should be used due to the small number of cases.



Table 62: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity

White

Black/African American

Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander

N % N % N % N %

Television* 86 17.5% 12 30.8% 23 30.3% 10 13.2%

Newspapers† 44 9.0% 5 12.8% 5 6.6% 8 10.5%

Charity's direct mail 166 33.9% 14 35.9% 27 36.0% 34 44.7%

Charity's e-mail*† 31 6.3% 8 20.0% 2 2.6% 1 1.3%

Charity's own website† 60 12.2% 2 5.1% 12 16.0% 4 5.3%

Internet but not charity's website

82 16.7% 7 17.9% 12 15.8% 19 25.0%

Other* 215 43.8% 14 35.0% 36 47.4% 32 42.1%

Total 490-491 -- 39-40 -- 75-76 -- 76 --



Table 63: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Gender

Male Female

N % N %

Television* 33 13.8% 106 20.6%

Newspapers 21 8.8% 47 9.1%

Charity's direct mail to you* 64 26.8% 193 37.5%

Charity’s email to you 15 6.3% 29 5.6%

Charity’s own website* 41 17.2% 47 9.1%

Internet but not charity's website* 54 22.6% 76 14.8%

Other 110 46.0% 232 45.1%

Total 239 -- 514-515 --



Table 64: Source of Information about Charitable Organizations by Employment Status


N % N % N % N %

Television 63 16.2% 7 9.6% 19 23.2% 36 22.1%

Newspapers*† 33 8.5% 4 5.5% 2 2.4% 24 14.7%

Charity's Direct Mail* 120 30.8% 31 43.1% 33 40.2% 67 41.1%

Charity's Email† 28 7.2% 2 2.7% 2 2.4% 12 7.4%

Charity's Own Website*† 62 15.9% 2 2.7% 6 7.3% 11 6.7%

Internet but Not Charity's Website*

92 23.6% 8 11.0% 14 17.1% 16 9.8%

Other* 182 46.7% 36 50.0% 37 45.1% 66 40.7%

Total 390 -- 72-73 -- 82 -- 162-163 --




Section 7: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More

This section describes the reasons respondents gave for not donating more to charitable organizations. The respondents could choose more than one answer so the percentages are based on the number of respondents who answered the questions rather than the number of answers given for the question. Respondents could strongly and somewhat agree/disagree with the statements. Please see Appendix C (Appendix Table 26) for a listing of responses for the other category and tables indicating whether respondents strongly or somewhat agree/disagreed with the statements. For the purposes of analysis, responses were collapsed into agree and disagree categories and the bivariate analysis by demographic characteristics describes the percentage of respondents who either ―strongly‖ or ―somewhat‖ agreed with the statement.

19

“I am going to read some reasons that people give for not donating more to charity. For each of these reasons, please tell me if you agree or disagree that this reason might be a reason you wouldn’t donate to charity. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the

following statements as a reason why you do not contribute more to charity?”

Overall, respondents most often cited high administrative costs (76%) and not being able to afford to give more (73%) as reasons they did not donate more in 2009. Other popular reasons indicated by respondents include giving to their church (59%), already supporting too many charities (54%), and not being sure what charities did with their last gift (51%) (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More20

19

In Appendix C, Appendix Tables 39-47 provide a breakdown of responses for ―strongly agree‖, ―somewhat agree‖, somewhat disagree‖, and ―strongly disagree‖. 20

Please see Appendix C, Appendix Table 26 for a listing of other reason why donors’ did not give more in 2009.

72.7%

41.6%

13.5%

24.9%

25.2%

53.6%

59.3%

76.0%

50.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

I can't afford to give more.

I would rather spend money in other ways.

I don't think charities deserve my support.

No one asked me to give.

I don't know enough about charities.

I already support too many.

I give to my church.

I think some charities have high administrative costs.

I am not sure what they did with my last gift.


Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Demographic Characteristics

Nine-out-of-ten older residents said some charities have high administrative costs. In comparison, 74 percent of those under 40 said that this was a reason for not giving more. Eighty-two percent of respondents aged 40 to 64 reported they could not afford to give more. This was significantly higher than the other two age categories (younger; 64% and older; 71%). Younger residents were the least likely to say they support too many charities (Table 65).

Respondents with household incomes of less than $50,000 were the most likely to state they could not afford to give more. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of residents with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 felt they already support too many charities. In contrast, 43 percent of those with lower incomes and 54 percent of those with higher incomes said they already support too many charities (Table 66).

Compared to other educational categories, respondents with a high school degree or less were the most likely to state that no one asked them to give and that they do not know enough about charities (Table 67).

Hispanics (86%) were the most likely to report that they could not afford to give more while Asians (63%) were the least likely to give that as a reason for not supporting more non-profit organizations. More than one-quarter of Asians (29%) felt charities did not deserve their support and over one-third (40%) stated that no one asked them to give. White respondents (47%) were more likely to state they would rather spend their money in other ways compared to African Americans (36%), Hispanics (28%), and Asians (44%). Eight-out-of-ten African Americans and Asians indicated that they give to their church, compared to 60 percent of Whites and 65 percent of Hispanics (Table 68).

Ninety-four percent of respondents who were not employed stated they could not afford to give more. In contrast, 76 percent of full-time employees, 64 percent of part-time employees, and 74 percent of retirees said they could not afford to give more. Unemployed respondents (40%) were the least likely and part-time employees were the most likely (75%) to say they already support too many charities (Table 69).

More than two-thirds of respondents with a religious preference reported that they already give to their church compared to only 23 percent of respondents with no religious preference (Table 70).

Of all the demographic characteristics analyzed, older respondents (aged 65 and older) and Protestants were the most likely to cite high administrative costs as the reason they do not donate more to charities (91% and 92% respectively).

African Americans were the least likely to agree with the following statement, “I don’t think charities deserve my support” (3%).


Table 65: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Age

Under 40 years old

40 to 64 years old

65 years old and older

I can't afford to give more.* 63.7% 81.5% 71.4%

I would rather spend money in other ways.* 38.2% 53.0% 24.6%

I don't think charities deserve my support. 11.9% 15.6% 11.1%

No one asked me to give. 20.8% 28.8% 23.5%

I don't know enough about charities. 22.6% 27.5% 25.4%

I already support too many.* 45.0% 61.2% 60.3%

I give to my church. 59.3% 62.8% 61.0%

I think some charities have high administrative costs.* 73.5% 85.1% 91.0%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift. 47.1% 57.2% 53.6%

Number of cases 132-151 385-403 111-121


Table 66: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Household Income


$100,000 or more

I can't afford to give more.* 81.4% 78.7% 68.3%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 44.6% 49.4% 40.4%

I don't think charities deserve my support.* 14.6% 18.9% 9.3%

No one asked me to give. 30.1% 33.5% 23.7%

I don't know enough about charities. 27.9% 29.6% 20.9%

I already support too many.* 43.3% 65.1% 54.0%

I give to my church. 57.1% 66.5% 63.2%

I think some charities have high administrative costs. 86.4% 80.9% 82.9%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift. 65.9% 55.7% 52.2%

Number of cases 110-140 178-186 177-188


Table 67: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Educational Attainment

High school or less

Some College Bachelor’s

Degree


Degree

I can't afford to give more. 77.2% 6.9% 74.8% 74.7%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 45.1% 42.0% 44.8% 42.7%

I don't think charities deserve my support. 15.0% 12.1% 16.8% 9.9%

No one asked me to give.* 33.3% 22.8% 26.2% 20.0%

I don't know enough about charities.* 38.7% 18.5% 26.3% 21.6%

I already support too many. 60.6% 51.3% 55.8% 57.6%

I give to my church. 67.4% 59.1% 59.9% 62.6%


85.5% 85.9% 84.0% 80.0%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift. 59.1% 53.9% 53.4% 52.9%

Number of cases 165-189 255-277 161-167 85-92



Table 68: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/ African

American Hispanic


I can't afford to give more.* 78.0% 79.5% 85.7% 62.5%

I would rather spend money in other ways.* 47.1% 35.9% 28.4% 44.0%

I don't think charities deserve my support.* 13.1% 2.6% 13.7% 28.9%

No one asked me to give.* 24.6% 15.4% 27.4% 39.5%

I don't know enough about charities. 25.5% 41.0% 28.4% 26.3%

I already support too many.* 60.0% 28.2% 33.8% 59.2%

I give to my church.* 59.7% 80.0% 64.9% 80.3%


85.0% 71.9% 82.5% 88.2%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift.* 51.2% 43.6% 64.3% 65.3%

Number of cases 445-472 32-40 63-74 68-76

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square

Table 69: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Employment Status


I can't afford to give more.* 76.4% 63.9% 93.8% 74.1%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 45.7% 43.1% 46.1% 37.7%

I don't think charities deserve my support. 13.9% 16.7% 13.0% 13.5%

No one asked me to give. 26.8% 23.9% 20.8% 23.4%

I don't know enough about charities. 25.1% 26.4% 23.0% 25.9%

I already support too many.* 51.9% 74.6% 39.7% 63.1%

I give to my church. 62.3% 66.2% 66.7% 56.4%


83.7% 83.8% 86.2% 89.4%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift.* 53.4% 64.2% 69.1% 52.3%

Number of cases 360-376 67-72 58-80 149-159


Table 70: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Religious Preference

Protestant Catholic Other

Christian Other

Religions No Religious Preference

I can't afford to give more. 79.8% 77.8% 76.7% 64.3% 76.4%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 40.1% 39.9% 50.0% 42.4% 52.5%

I don't think charities deserve my support. 13.6% 16.0% 12.5% 23.9% 11.8%

No one asked me to give. 34.3% 26.9% 23.4% 26.9% 20.0%

I don't know enough about charities.* 38.6% 21.0% 23.5% 16.9% 24.8%

I already support too many. 59.9% 55.1% 50.4% 53.5% 50.0%

I give to my church.* 77.4% 67.6% 67.5% 72.9% 23.2%

I think some charities have high administrative costs.*

92.4% 84.4% 77.9% 76.1% 80.8%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift. 52.1% 62.0% 56.8% 50.7% 52.1%

Number of cases 157-168 160-178 111-120 66-71 120-127



Section 8: Comparisons of Previous, Current, and Future Giving This section discusses comparisons of past, current, and future donations to charitable organizations.

“Did you donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2008?”

“This year do you plan to donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2009?”

Respondents were asked if they donated more, less, or the same in 2009 as 2008 as well as what they are planning on giving in 2010. The majority of respondents stated they plan to give the same in 2010 as they did in 2009. Twenty-one percent of the respondents are planning to give more in 2010 that they did in 2009 (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving

25.1%

20.8%

24.5%

22.0%

50.4%

57.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

During 2009, did you donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2008?

This year, do you plan to donate more, less or

the same as you did in 2009?

More Less The same


Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Demographic Characteristics

Younger residents were the most likely to report that they plan on giving more in 2010 than they did in 2009. More than 60 percent of those over the age of 40 said they were planning on giving the same in 2010 as they did in 2009 compared to 46 percent of those 40 years of age and younger (Table 71).

As respondents’ household income increases so does likelihood of planning to donate the same amount in 2010 as 2009. Compared with the other income categories, respondents whose household income was less than $50,000 were slightly more likely to plan to donate more in 2010 than they did in 2009 (Table 72).

More than one-quarter of respondents with a bachelor’s degree (27%) plan on giving more in 2010 than they did in 2009 while only 17 percent of those with a graduate or professional degree plan on giving more (Table 73).

Compared to other race/ethnic groups, Asians were the most likely to say they donated more in 2009 than 2008 (30%). They were also the most likely to plan on donating more in 2010 (40%). Nearly two-thirds of White respondents (63%) stated that they plan on giving the same in 2010 as they did in 2009. In comparison, 23 percent of African Americans, 41 percent of Hispanics, and 41 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders said they plan to give the same in 2010 as they did in 2009. African Americans were the most likely to say they donated less in 2009 (50%) as well as the most likely to plan on donating less this year (56%) (Table 74).

Respondents who were employed part-time were the most likely to state they gave more in 2009 (31%) and plan on giving more in 2010 (34%). Not surprisingly those who are not employed were the most likely to give less both last year (39%) and this year (33%). More than two-thirds (69%) of retired respondents plan to give the same in 2010 as they did in 2009. In comparison, fewer full-time (55%), part-time (49%), and unemployed workers (55%) plan on giving the same in 2010 as they did in 2009 (Table 75).

Respondents who attend church once a week were the most likely to report that they plan on giving more in 2010 than they did in 2009 (30%). In contrast, only 10 percent of those who never attend church plan on giving more (Table 76).

Overall, retired respondents were the most likely to have donated the same in 2009 as they did in 2008 (56%). They were also the most likely to say they plan on donating the same in 2010 as they did in 2009 (69%).

Respondents who were not employed were the least likely to indicate they plan on donating more in 2010 than they did in 2009 (13%). African Americans were the least likely to have donated more in 2009 than they did in 2008 (6%).


Table 71: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Age

Under 40 years old 40 to 64 years old 65 yrs old and older

N % N % N %

Did you donate more,

less, or the same as you did in 2008?

Donated more 42 28.6% 104 27.3% 21 17.9%

Donated less 42 28.6% 92 24.1% 25 21.4%

Donated the same 63 42.9% 185 48.6% 71 60.7%

Total 147 100.00% 381 100.0% 117 100.0%

This year do you plan to donate more, less or the same as you did in

2009?*

Donate more 53 37.9% 66 17.3% 16 13.9%

Donate less 22 15.7% 77 20.2% 29 25.2%

Donate the same 65 46.4% 238 62.5% 70 60.9%

Total 140 100.0% 381 100.0% 115 100.0%


Table 72: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Household Income


$100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Did you donate more,

less, or the same as you did in 2008?

Donated more 24 18.1% 48 25.8% 58 30.7%

Donated less 40 30.1% 45 24.2% 36 19.0%

Donated the same 69 51.9% 93 50.0% 95 50.3%

Total 133 100.00% 186 100.0% 189 100.0%

This year do you plan to donate more, less or the same as you did in

2009?*

Donate more 39 29.1% 48 25.5% 29 16.1%

Donate less 37 27.6% 34 18.1% 38 21.1%

Donate the same 58 43.3% 106 56.4% 113 62.8%

Total 134 100.0% 188 100.0% 180 100.0%


Table 73: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Educational Attainment

High school or less Some College Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or Professional

Degree

N % N % N % N %

Did you donate more, less, or the same as you did

in 2008?*

Donated more 23 14.2% 68 25.2% 52 31.3% 28 31.1%

Donated less 50 30.9% 64 23.7% 31 18.7% 25 27.8%

Donated the same

89 54.9% 138 51.1% 83 50.0% 37 41.1%

Total 162 100.0% 270 100.0% 166 100.0% 90 100.0%

This year do you plan to donate more, less or the

same as you did in 2009?*

Donate more 35 21.6% 50 18.6% 42 26.6% 15 16.7%

Donate less 46 28.4% 65 24.2% 25 15.8% 14 15.6%

Donate the same

81 50.0% 154 57.2% 91 57.6% 61 67.8%

Total 162 100.0% 269 100.0% 158 100.0% 90 100.0%



Table 74: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic


N % N % N % N %


in 2008?*

Donated more 121 26.3% 2 5.9% 17 23.6% 19 30.2%

Donated less 104 22.6% 17 50.0% 23 31.9% 20 31.7%

Donated the same

236 51.2% 15 44.1% 32 44.4% 24 38.1%

Total 461 100.0% 34 100.0% 72 100.0% 63 100.0%



Donate more 83 18.2% 8 20.5% 19 25.7% 25 39.7%

Donate less 85 18.6% 22 56.4% 25 33.8% 12 19.0%

Donate the same

289 63.2% 9 23.1% 30 40.5% 26 41.3%

Total 457 100.0% 39 100.0% 74 100.0% 63 100.0%


Table 75: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Employment Status


N % N % N % N %

Did you donate more, less, or the


Donated more 104 28.2% 19 30.6% 12 15.4% 35 23.6%

Donated less 95 25.8% 7 11.3% 30 38.5% 30 20.3%

Donated the same

170 46.1% 36 58.1% 36 46.2% 83 56.1%

Total 369 100.0% 62 100.0% 78 100.0% 148 100.0%



Donate more 88 23.9% 18 34.0% 10 13.0% 20 13.4%

Donate less 76 20.7% 9 17.0% 25 32.5% 27 18.1%

Donate the same

204 55.4% 26 49.1% 42 54.5% 102 68.5%

Total 368 100.0% 53 100.0% 77 100.0% 149 100.0%


Table 76: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Church Attendance

Once a week Few times a month Seldom Never

N % N % N % N %


in 2008?

Donated more 79 31.0% 24 18.3% 33 22.0% 36 24.8%

Donated less 53 20. 8% 33 25.2% 45 30.0% 34 23.4%

Donated the same

123 48.2% 74 56.5% 72 48.0% 75 51.7%

Total 255 100.0% 131 100.0% 150 100.0% 145 100.0%



Donate more 74 29.5% 18 14.5% 34 22.4% 14 9.7%

Donate less 48 19.1% 41 33.1% 29 19.1% 32 22.1%

Donate the same

129 51.4% 65 52.4% 89 58.6% 99 68.3%

Total 251 100.0% 124 100.0% 152 100.0% 145 100.0%



Section 9: Trust in Charitable Organizations

This section describes responses to a series of questions about trust in charitable organizations. There were a substantial number of ―don’t know‖ responses to several of these questions. Typically, these responses would be dropped from the analysis, but in this case, they were retained because they suggest that respondents have mixed feelings on this subject.

“Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs and services?”

“How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?”

Overall, respondents felt that charitable organizations do a ―somewhat good‖ job running their programs and services (48%) as well as spending money wisely (45%). Ten percent of respondents felt charities do not do a good job of spending money wisely. Seven percent of respondents felt that charities do not do a good job of running their programs and services.

One-quarter of respondents did not know how well charitable organizations spend their money (Figure 19). Eight-out-of-ten respondents have either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in charities (Figure 20). More than one-third (37%) of respondents stated they trust local charities more than national charities while forty-one percent said they trust both the same (Figure 21). Nearly three-quarters (73%) agreed with the statement that charities in the Sacramento region are ethnical, while 21 percent did not know (Figure 22). Three-quarters reported that trust does influence their charitable giving, and nearly two-thirds (65%) said their trust in charitable organizations increase their charitable donations (Figure 23 & Figure 24).

Figure 19: Perception of How Charitable Organizations Run Programs and Spend Money

28.5%

48.3%

4.6%

1.9%

16.7%

19.2%

44.9%

8.9%

1.3%

25.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Very good

Somewhat good

Not too good

Not at all good

Don’t know

Running Programs and Services

Spending Money Wisely


“For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable organizations?”

Figure 20: Confidence in Charitable Organizations

“In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national charities?”

Figure 21: Local Trust in Charities Compared to National Trust

23.3%

56.8%

13.9%

1.0%5.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Great deal of confidence

Fair amount of confidence

Not too much confidence

No confidence Don’t know

37.0%

8.0%

40.6%

14.4%Trust Sacramento region’s charities more

Trust national charities more

Trust both the same

Don’t know


“For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are ethical?”

Figure 22: Perception of Ethics of Local Charities

“Does your general trust in charities influence your charitable giving?”

Figure 23: Does Trust in Charities Influence Giving

24.8%

48.2%

4.1%

1.8%

21.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don’t know

75.2%

17.2%

7.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Yes No Don’t know


“Does it (trust) increase or decrease your giving?”

Figure 24: How Does Trust Influence Giving

Trust in Charitable Organizations by Demographic Characteristics

A large portion of the analysis for this section produced cells with expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test, and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

21

Compared to respondents with higher household incomes, respondents with household incomes under $50,000 were less likely to say they trust local charities more than national charities. Thirty-two percent of the respondents in this income category said they trust local charities more than national charities. In contrast, 43 percent of respondents with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 and 39 percent of those with household incomes of $100,000 or more said they trust Sacramento’s charities more than national charities.

The impact of trust on charitable giving was higher for those with household incomes above $50,000. Eight-out-of-ten respondents with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 stated that trust influences their charitable giving and 72 percent of respondents said it increases their giving (Table 78).

Respondents with a graduate or professional degree were the most likely to report trusting local charities more than national charities (45%). Eighty-four percent of residents with a graduate or professional degree stated that trust influences their

21

Tables 77-82 all contain small cell sizes (less than 5), caution should be used in interpreting the relationships presented in these tables.

64.8%11.9%

23.3%Increase

Decrease

Don’t know

Of all the demographic characteristics analyzed, respondents with a graduate or professional degree were the most likely to indicate that their general trust in charities influences their charitable giving (84%).

Respondents with household incomes of $100,000 or more were the least likely to say they trust national charities more than local charities (4%).


charitable giving and more than three quarters said it increases their giving (Table 79).

The longer respondents had lived in the Sacramento region, the more likely they were to trust local charities more than national charities (Table 81).

Males were more likely than females to trust local charities more than national charities. Females were more likely than males to say they did not know whether they trusted local charities more than national charities (Table 82).


Table 77: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Age

Under 40 yrs old Under 40 yrs old 65 yrs old and

older

Generally speaking, how

good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs

and services?*†

Very good 24.3% 29.7% 24.2%

Somewhat good 59.9% 49.0% 45.0%

Not too good 2.6% 3.4% 8.3%

Not at all good 0.7% 2.4% 2.5%

Don’t know 12.5% 15.5% 20.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Number of cases 152 414 120

How good of a job do charitable organizations do

in spending money wisely?*†

Very good 17.2% 20.7% 15.7%

Somewhat good 57.0% 47.1% 36.4%

Not too good 6.6% 7.8% 13.2%


Don’t know 18.5% 23.7% 30.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable

organizations?*†

Great deal of confidence 17.0% 27.1% 18.0%

Fair amount of confidence 63.4% 54.1% 59.0%

Not too much confidence 8.5% 15.0% 13.9%

No confidence 0.7% 0.7% 3.3%

Don’t know 10.5% 3.1% 5.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Number of cases 153 414 122

In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento

regions charities compare with your trust in national charities?

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more 33.1% 40.1% 36.2%

Trust national charities more 6.8% 9.0% 5.2%

Trust both the same 44.6% 39.9% 43.1%

Don’t know 15.5% 10.9% 15.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly

disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are ethical?*†

Strongly agree 15.8% 27.7% 24.0%

Agree 64.5% 47.6% 44.0%

Disagree 4.6% 4.1% 3.2%

Strongly disagree 1.3% 1.0% 3.2%

Don’t know 13.8% 19.7% 25.6%


Does your general trust in

charities influence your charitable giving?

Yes 70.2% 75.9% 77.5%

No 19.9% 17.5% 14.2%

Don’t know 9.9% 6.6% 8.3%


Does it (trust) increase or decrease your giving?

Increase 71.7% 65.5% 58.0%

Decrease 6.7% 12.7% 16.0%

Don’t know 22.1% 21.9% 26.1%




NOTE: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.


Table 78: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Household Income

Under $50,000

$50,000 but less than $100,000

$100,000 or more



and services?†

Very good 24.6% 30.7% 27.6%

Somewhat good 48.6% 50.8% 51.6%

Not too good 4.2% 5.8% 5.2%


Don’t know 19.0% 11.6% 14.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?†

Very good 16.1% 22.6% 16.2%

Somewhat good 43.8% 44.7% 51.3%

Not too good 8.8% 11.1% 7.3%


Don’t know 29.9% 21.1% 24.1%

Total 100.1% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable

organizations?*†





Don’t know 7.1% 2.6% 2.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento

regions charities compare with your trust in national charities?*




Don’t know 13.1% 7.0% 14.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly

disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are ethical?†


Agree 51.0% 52.9% 44.0%

Disagree 3.5% 6.3% 4.7%


Don’t know 19.6% 13.2% 21.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Does your general trust in charities influence your

charitable giving?*

Yes 67.1% 80.4% 76.4%

No 20.0% 13.2% 19.9%

Don’t know 12.9% 6.3% 3.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Does it (trust) increase or decrease your giving?*

Increase 54.3% 71.6% 70.9%

Decrease 11.6% 12.1% 13.2%

Don’t know 34.1% 16.3% 15.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%






Table 79: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment

High school or less

Some College

Bachelor’s Degree


Degree

Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do

in running their programs and services? †

Very good 26.8% 30.0% 32.4% 22.0%

Somewhat good 48.4% 49.3% 47.6% 52.7%

Not too good 4.7% 4.6% 3.5% 3.3%

Not at all good 2.1% 2.5% 0.6% 1.1%

Don’t know 17.9% 13.6% 15.9% 20.9%

Total 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Number of cases 190 280 170 91

How good of a job do charitable organizations do

in spending money wisely? †

Very good 14.4% 19.6% 26.2% 15.4%

Somewhat good 46.3% 45.4% 44.2% 47.3%

Not too good 7.4% 11.8% 5.2% 11.0%

Not at all good 1.6% 0.7% 1.2% 1.1%

Don’t know 30.3% 22.5% 23.3% 25.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you

have in charitable organizations?*†

Great deal of confidence 15.1% 23.2% 29.8% 28.0%

Fair amount of confidence 52.6% 61.4% 52.0% 61.3%

Not too much confidence 22.4% 12.5% 10.5% 7.5%

No confidence 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% 0.0%

Don’t know 8.9% 2.1% 6.4% 3.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your

trust in the Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national

charities?*

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more 42.4% 36.5% 30.8% 44.6%

Trust national charities more 10.9% 7.6% 7.1% 5.4%

Trust both the same 28.3% 46.2% 46.2% 40.2%

Don’t know 18.5% 9.7% 16.0% 9.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree,

disagree, or strongly disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are

ethical?*†

Strongly agree 17.8% 31.0% 19.8% 28.3%

Agree 47.1% 43.8% 57.0% 51.1%

Disagree 6.3% 3.9% 2.9% 2.2%

Strongly disagree 2.1% 0.7% 1.7% 1.1%

Don’t know 26.7% 20.6% 18.6% 17.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1%



charities influence your charitable giving?*

Yes 67.7% 77.5% 74.0% 83.9%

No 22.8% 13.9% 19.5% 12.9%

Don’t know 9.5% 8.6% 6.5% 3.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Does it (trust) increase or

decrease your giving?* Increase 61.2% 61.4% 65.7% 78.0%

Decrease 9.0% 13.6% 15.4% 6.6%

Don’t know 29.8% 25.0% 18.9% 15.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%






Table 80: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic Asian/Pacific

Islander



and services?* †

Very good 28.2% 34.1% 28.0% 15.8%

Somewhat good 47.5% 46.3% 48.0% 67.1%

Not too good 5.6% 2.4% 0.0% 2.6%

Not at all good 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3%

Don’t know 16.7% 17.1% 24.0% 9.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


How good of a job do

charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?* †

Very good 20.5% 22.5% 10.7% 15.8%

Somewhat good 44.6% 22.5% 44.0% 56.6%

Not too good 7.1% 22.5% 8.0% 17.1%

Not at all good 1.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%

Don’t know 25.9% 32.5% 36.0% 10.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how

much confidence do you have in charitable organizations?* †

Great deal of confidence 26.0% 33.3% 6.6% 9.2%

Fair amount of confidence 53.8% 46.2% 71.1% 68.4%

Not too much confidence 13.1% 20.5% 18.4% 13.2%

No confidence 1.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%

Don’t know 5.9% 0.0% 2.6% 9.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your

trust in the Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national

charities?* †

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more 41.0% 43.6% 36.5% 17.1%

Trust national charities more 5.7% 2.6% 5.4% 31.6%

Trust both the same 41.0% 38.5% 43.2% 36.8%

Don’t know 12.4% 15.4% 14.9% 14.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you

strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that charities in

the Sacramento region are ethical?* †

Strongly agree 24.2% 35.9% 17.3% 31.2%

Agree 47.7% 46.2% 37.3% 28.4%

Disagree 5.3% 2.6% 5.3% 0.0%

Strongly disagree 1.6% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3%

Don’t know 21.1% 15.4% 38.7% 9.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



charities influence your charitable giving?* †

Yes 75.4% 79.5% 64.0% 68.0%

No 18.0% 20.5% 30.7% 8.0%

Don’t know 6.6% 0.0% 5.3% 24.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Does it (trust) increase or decrease your giving?* †

Increase 65.8% 76.9% 58.1% 59.2%

Decrease 11.3% 5.1% 13.5% 21.1%

Don’t know 22.9% 17.9% 28.4% 19.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%






Table 81: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Residency

10 years or less 11 to 30 years 31 years or more

Generally speaking, how good of a job would you

say charitable organizations do in running their programs

and services? †

Very good 32.0% 26.3% 28.7%

Somewhat good 48.6% 51.4% 44.6%

Not too good 6.3% 3.5% 4.7%


Don’t know 12.0% 15.9% 20.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


How good of a job do charitable organizations

do in spending money wisely?* †

Very good 23.1% 17.6% 18.7%

Somewhat good 48.0% 48.7% 38.1%

Not too good 5.2% 7.7% 12.8%


Don’t know 23.1% 25.0% 28.4%

Total 100.1% 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you

have in charitable organizations?* †





Don’t know 6.3% 3.8% 5.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your trust in the

Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national

charities?*




Don’t know 17.4% 12.3% 15.0%


For you personally, do

you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that

charities in the Sacramento region are ethical?* †


Agree 59.0% 48.1% 41.5%

Disagree 4.0% 5.3% 2.3%


Don’t know 15.6% 21.4% 24.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Does your general trust in charities influence

your charitable giving?

Yes 77.9% 74.2% 74.7%

No 18.0% 15.5% 18.7%

Don’t know 4.1% 10.3% 6.6%



Increase 72.8% 63.3% 61.7%

Decrease 14.2% 11.5% 10.7%

Don’t know 13.0% 25.2% 27.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%






Table 82: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Gender

Male Female

Generally speaking, how good of a job would you

say charitable organizations do in running their programs

and services? †

Very good 25.5% 30.1%

Somewhat good 52.3% 46.6%

Not too good 5.0% 4.3%

Not at all good 1.7% 2.0%

Don’t know 15.5% 17.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Number of cases 239 509

How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money

wisely?* †

Very good 19.9% 18.9%




Don’t know 21.2% 27.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how

much confidence do you have in charitable organizations? †

Great deal of confidence 20.1% 24.9%

Fair amount of confidence 56.9% 56.6%

Not too much confidence 15.9% 13.1%

No confidence 1.3% 1.0%

Don’t know 5.9% 4.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your trust in the

Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national

charities?*

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more

45.1% 33.1%

Trust national charities more 6.8% 8.6%

Trust both the same 38.4% 41.8%

Don’t know 9.7% 16.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or

strongly disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are

ethical?* †

Strongly agree 30.1% 22.4%

Agree 49.0% 47.8%

Disagree 4.6% 3.7%

Strongly disagree 2.9% 1.4%

Don’t know 13.4% 24.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


Does your general trust

in charities influence your charitable giving?

Yes 80.5% 72.7%

No 14.4% 18.6%


Total 100.0% 100.0%



Increase 64.5% 65.1%

Decrease 13.2% 11.2%

Don’t know 22.2% 23.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0%






Section 10: Non-Donors

The following section focuses on respondents who stated they did not give to charitable organizations in 2009. First, they were asked if they have ever given to charitable organizations. If they said they had previously donated, they were asked about their reasons for not giving in 2009. If they said they had never donated, they were asked what prevented them from giving.

Sixty-four percent of respondents that did not give in 2009 have never donated to a charitable organization (Figure 25). Seven-out-of-ten respondents who had given in the past reported that they could not afford to give money in 2009 (Figure 26). Sixty-nine percent of respondents who had never given to a charitable organization indicated that their financial situation prevents them from donating, while 19 percent reported they just choose not to give (Figure 27).

“Have you ever donated to a non-profit or charitable organization?”

Figure 25: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009

“What was the reason you did not give to a non-profit or charitable organization

in 2009?” (Select all that apply)

Figure 26: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009

NOTE: This question was asked of respondents who had given in the past. Percents sum to more than 100 because respondents

could choose more than one answer.

36.1%

63.9%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

Yes No

12.4%

70.6%

8.8%

5.3%

6.5%

2.4%

12.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

No one personally asked us to give

We could not afford to give money in 2009

We would rather volunteer than give money

We were being asked to give too frequently

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently

We think charities are becoming too much like for-…

Other


“What prevents you from giving?” Is it your:

Figure 27: Factors that Prevent Non-Donors from Giving

Previous Donations by Demographic Characteristics

These results contain tables and measures where one or more cells have expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test, and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

22

As respondent age increased, so did the likelihood of having donated in the past. (

Table 83).

Only six percent of Asian and Pacific Islander respondents who did not donate in 2009 had ever given to a charity, compared to 22 percent of Hispanics and 48 percent of both Whites and African Americans (Table 85).

Among respondents who did not donate in 2009, those who have lived in the Sacramento region for 31 years or more were much more likely to report giving to charities in the past (Table 86).

22

Tables 84-85 and 89-97 all contain small cell sizes, (less than 5), caution should be used in interpreting the relationships presented in these tables. Because of these small cell sizes, the description of statistically significant relationships presented in this section is much more limited than it is for other sections of the report.

69.1%

9.0%

2.0%1.0%

18.9%Financial Situation

Distrust that donations will be well spent

Lack of knowledge about charities

Lack of time to research charities

Just Choose not to give

Among those who did not donate in 2009, older respondents (65 or older) and those with household incomes of $100,000 or more were the most likely to have donated in the past (56%).

Asian and Pacific Islander respondents were the least likely to have donated previously (6%).


Retired respondents were the most likely to state they have given in the past (Table 87).

Table 83: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Age*

Under 40 yrs old 40 to 64 yrs old 65 yrs old and older

N % N % N %

Yes 58 26.6% 68 45.3% 29 55.8%

No 160 73.4% 82 54.7% 23 44.2%

Total 218 100.0% 150 100.0% 52 100.0%


Table 84: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Household Income*†


$100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Yes 90 41.5% 57 23.0% 5 55.6%

No 127 58.5% 74 77.0% 4 44.4%

Total 217 100.0% 74 100.0% 9 100.0%



Table 85: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Race/Ethnicity*†


N % N % N % N %

Yes 97 48.3% 19 47.5% 29 22.3% 4 6.1%

No 104 51.7% 21 52.5% 101 77.7% 62 93.9%

Total 201 100.0% 40 100.0% 130 100.0% 66 100.0%



Table 86: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Residency*

10 years or less 11 to 30 years 31 years or more

N % N % N %

Yes 64 32.7% 54 26.1% 63 63.0%

No 111 67.3% 153 73.9% 37 37.0%

Total 165 100.0% 207 100.0% 100 100.0%



Table 87: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Employment Status*


N % N % N % N %

Yes 40 25.8% 25 34.7% 62 42.2% 26 47.3%

No 115 74.2% 47 65.3% 85 57.8% 29 52.7%

Total 155 100.0% 72 100.0% 147 100.0% 55 100.0%


Table 88: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Church Attendance*

Once a week Few Times a Month Seldom Never

N % N % N % N %

Yes 31 29.0% 20 20.4% 60 61.2% 55 32.4%

No 76 71.0% 78 79.6% 38 38.8% 106 65.8%

Total 107 100.0% 98 100.0% 98 100.0% 161 100.0%


Table 89: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Religious Preference*†


N % N % N % N % N %

Yes 41 49.4% 51 34.2% 17 29.8% 3 6.4% 50 47.2%

No 42 50.6% 98 65.8% 40 70.2% 44 93.6% 56 52.8%

Total 83 100.0% 149 100.0% 57 100.0% 47 100.0% 106 100.0%



Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Demographic Characteristics

Among respondents who did not donate during 2009 but who had given in the past, there were few statistically significant differences between demographic groups in terms of reasons for not donating during 2009. In the few cases where there were differences, the results have expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test, and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.


Table 90: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Age


N % N % N %

No one personally asked us to give*† 13 22.4% 3 4.4% 4 13.8%

We could not afford to give money in 2009 39 67.2% 53 79.1% 19 65.5%

We would rather volunteer than give money† 6 10.3% 9 13.2% 1 3.3%

We were being asked to give too frequently† 2 6.9% 5 7.4% 3 10.3%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently† 4 5.2% 5 7.4% 1 3.4%

We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies†

0 0.0% 4 5.9% 0 0.0%

Other† 13 22.8% 3 4.4% 4 13.3%

Total 57-58 -- 67-68 -- 29-30 --



Table 91: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Household Income

Under $50,000 $50,000 but less than $100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

No one personally asked us to give† 17 18.9% 3 17.6% 0 0.0%

We could not afford to give money in 2009† 64 71.1% 8 47.1% 4 80.0%

We would rather volunteer than give money† 14 15.6% 1 5.6% 0 0.0%

We were being asked to give too frequently† 8 8.9% 1 5.6% 0 0.0%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently† 8 8.9% 3 17.6% 0 0.0% We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies† 4 4.4% 0 0.0% 1 20.0%

Other† 14 15.6% 2 11.8% 0 0.0%

Total 90-91 -- 17-18 -- 5 --


Table 92: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic


N % N % N % N %

No one personally asked us to give*†

10 10.3% 0 0.0% 11 37.9% 0 0.0%

We could not afford to give money in 2009†

61 63.5% 13 68.4% 21 75.0% 4 100.0%

We would rather volunteer than give money*†

5 5.2% 0 0.0% 10 35.7% 0 0.0%

We were being asked to give too frequently†

7 7.3% 0 0.0% 2 7.1% 0 0.0%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently†

7 7.2% 3 16.7% 1 3.6% 0 0.0%

We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies†

4 4.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Other† 11 11.3% 6 31.6% 3 10.7% 0 0.0%

Total 96-97 -- 18-19 -- 28-29 -- 4-5 --




Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Demographic Characteristics

All of the following tables have one or more cells with expected cell counts of less than five. This violates one of the assumptions necessary for the Chi-Square statistical test, and makes the test results unreliable. Consequently, these relationships will not be described. The tables have been included for descriptive purposes only. Caution should be used in interpreting the relationships between these variables.

Table 93: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Age†


N % N % N %

Financial Situation 112 69.6% 54 69.2% 17 68.0%

Distrust that donations will be well spent 13 8.1% 9 11.5% 2 8.0%

Lack of knowledge about charities 6 3.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Lack of time to research charities 2 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Just Choose not to give 28 17.4% 15 19.2% 6 24.0%

Total 161 100.0% 78 100.0% 25 100.0%


Table 94: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Household Income*†


$100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Financial Situation 91 71.7% 33 60.0% 4 80.0% Distrust that donations will be well spent 16 12.6% 2 3.6% 1 20.0%

Lack of knowledge about charities 6 4.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Lack of time to research charities 2 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Just Choose not to give 12 9.4% 20 36.4% 0 0.0%

Total 127 100.0% 55 100.0% 5 100.0%



Table 95: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Educational Attainment*†

High school or less

Some College Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or Professional

Degree

N % N % N % N %

Financial Situation 115 76.7% 61 67.0% 22 51.2% 8 61.5%


14 9.3% 8 8.8% 2 4.7% 3 23.1%

Lack of knowledge about charities 5 3.3% 1 1.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Lack of time to research charities 2 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Just Choose not to give 14 9.3% 21 23.1% 19 44.2% 2 15.4%

Total 150 100.0% 91 100.0% 43 100.0% 13 100.0%



Table 96: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Race/Ethnicity*†

White Black/African Hispanic Asian/Pacific


American Islander

N % N % N % N %

Financial Situation 71 68.3% 5 20.8% 65 65.0% 61 98.4% Distrust that donations will be well spent 6 5.8% 10 41.7% 8 8.0% 1 1.6%

Lack of knowledge about charities 1 1.0% 3 12.5% 2 2.0% 0 0.0%

Lack of time to research charities 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.0% 0 0.0%

Just Choose not to give 25 24.0% 6 25.0% 23 23.0% 0 0.0%

Total 104 100.0% 24 100.0% 100 100.0% 62 100.0%



Table 97: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Religious Preference*†


N % N % N % N % N %

Financial Situation 27 65.9% 64 69.6% 29 69.0% 35 79.5% 42 75.0%


0 0.0% 3 3.3% 3 7.1% 3 6.8% 9 16.1%


0 0.0% 1 1.1% 4 9.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Lack of time to research

charities 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 4.5% 0 0.0%

Just choose not to give 14 34.1% 24 26.1% 6 14.3% 4 9.1% 5 8.9%

Total 41 100.0% 92 100.0% 42 100.0% 44 100.0% 56 100.0%




Section 11: Planned Giving This section describes responses to questions regarding bequests. These questions were asked of all respondents, regardless of their participation in charitable giving during 2009.

“Do you, a spouse, or partner, have an estate plan or will?”

“If yes, does your estate plan or will include planned donations to a charity?”

Two-out-of-five respondents (40%) indicated that they have an estate plan or will. Of those, 22 percent have included planned donations to a charity in their estate plan or will (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Planned Giving

40.4%

21.8%

59.6%

78.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Have an estate plan or will

Includes planned giving

Yes No


Planned Giving by Demographic Characteristics

As respondent age increased, so did the likelihood of having an estate plan or will. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents 65 years of age and older reported having an estate plan or will. In contrast, two-thirds of 40 to 64 year olds, and only 18 percent of those less than 40 years of age reported having an estate plan or will. Among those with an estate plan or will, there was no relationship between age and the likelihood of it including planned donations to charity (Table 98 and Table 99).

Residents whose household income was $100,000 or more (71%) were the most likely to have an estate plan or will while those whose income was under $50,000 (25%) were the least likely. Among those with an estate plan or will, there was no relationship between household income and planned giving (Table 100 and Table 101).

As respondents’ educational attainment increased, so did their likelihood of having an estate plan or will. Of the 71 percent of respondents with a graduate or professional degree that have an estate plan or will, one-third (33%) have included planned giving. Of the 52 percent of respondents with a bachelor’s degree that have an estate plan or will, nearly one-quarter (24%) have included planned giving (Table 102 and Table 103).

The majority of White respondents (51%) indicated they have an estate plan or will while only 11 percent of Hispanic reported having one. There was no relationship between planned giving and race/ethnicity (Table 104 and Table 105).

Other Christians (49%) and Protestants (48%) were the most likely to have an estate plan or will while 71 percent of respondents with no religious preference stated they did not have one. There was no relationship between planned giving and religious preference (Table 106 and Table 107).

Table 98: Estate Plan or Will by Age*


N % N % N %

Yes 68 18.2% 261 67.3% 127 73.8%

No 306 81.8% 127 32.7% 45 26.2%

Total 374 100.0% 388 100.0% 172 100.0%


Of all the demographic characteristics analyzed, respondents aged 65 and older were the most likely to have an estate plan or will, at 74 percent.

Hispanics were the least likely to have an estate plan or will (11%). Of those who had an estate plan or will, planned donations were most prevalent for

respondents holding a graduate or professional degree, at 33 percent. Households with earnings less than $50,000 were the least likely to have planned

donations in their estate plan or will (16%).


Table 99: Planned Giving by Age


N % N % N %

Yes 15 22.4% 55 22.2% 22 17.7%

No 52 77.6% 193 77.8% 102 82.3%

Total 67 100.0% 248 100.0% 124 100.0%

Table 100: Estate Plan or Will by Household Income*


$100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Yes 90 25.0% 115 44.2% 139 70.6%

No 270 75.0% 145 55.8% 58 29.4%

Total 360 100.0% 260 100.0% 197 100.0%


Table 101: Planned Giving by Household Income


$100,000 $100,000 or more

N % N % N %

Yes 14 15.9% 31 27.2% 33 23.9%

No 74 84.1% 83 72.8% 105 76.1%

Total 88 100.0% 114 100.0% 138 100.0%

Table 102: Estate Plan or Will by Educational Attainment*

High school or less Some College Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or

Professional Degree

N % N % N % N %

Yes 104 25.0% 176 40.8% 119 52.4% 78 70.9%

No 312 75.0% 255 59.2% 108 47.6% 32 29.1%

Total 416 100.0% 431 100.0% 227 100.0% 110 100.0%


Table 103: Planned Giving by Educational Attainment*

High school or less Some College Bachelor’s Degree Graduate or

Professional Degree

N % N % N % N %

Yes 15 16.1% 32 18.3% 27 23.5% 25 32.9%

No 78 83.9% 143 81.7% 88 76.5% 51 67.1%

Total 93 100.0% 175 100.0% 115 100.0% 76 100.0%



Table 104: Estate Plan or Will by Race/Ethnicity*

White Black/African


N % N % N % N %

Yes 346 51.0% 31 38.3% 22 10.8% 32 23.4%

No 333 49.0% 50 61.7% 181 89.2% 105 76.6%

Total 679 100.0% 81 100.0% 203 100.0% 137 100.0%


Table 105: Planned Giving by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African


N % N % N % N %

Yes 69 20.3% 6 25.0% 6 27.3% 6 19.4%

No 271 79.7% 18 75.0% 16 72.7% 25 80.6%

Total 340 100.0% 24 100.0% 22 100.0% 31 100.0%

Table 106: Estate Plan or Will by Religious Preference*


N % N % N % N % N %

Yes 120 48.2% 129 39.1% 86 48.6% 37 31.9% 67 28.8%

No 129 51.8% 201 60.9% 91 51.4% 79 68.1% 166 71.2%

Total 249 100.0% 330 100.0% 177 100.0% 116 100.0% 233 100.0%


Table 107: Planned Giving by Religious Preference


N % N % N % N % N %

Yes 29 25.0% 25 19.5% 18 22.5% 7 19.4% 16 25.0%

No 87 75.0% 103 80.5% 62 77.5% 29 80.6% 48 75.0%

Total 116 100.0% 128 100.0% 80 100.0% 36 100.0% 64 100.0%


Section 12: Funding Social Programs

The following describes respondents’ opinions about the relative proportion of social program funding that should be provided by government or private charities. The types of social programs asked about include educational, health and human services, arts and cultural, and environmental programs. The results describe the mean (average) percentage of funding that respondents felt should be provided by each source.

“Now we would like to get your opinions on the role of charities versus the government in improving the welfare of others and providing vital programs and services. What percentage of _____________ should be funded by local, state or

federal governments versus private charities?”

An overwhelming majority of respondents indicated government should provide most of the funding for educational, environmental and health and human services programs. The opposite is true for arts and cultural programs; respondents felt that most of the funding for arts and cultural programs should be provided by private charities (Figure 29).

Figure 29: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs

73.6

69.3

39.0

61.8

26.4

30.7

61.0

38.2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Educational Programs

Health and Human Services

Arts and Culture Programs

Environmental Programs

Government Private Charities


Funding Social Programs by Demographic Characteristics

In general, respondents’ opinions about how social programs should be funded were remarkably consistent across demographic categories. There were some differences between groups that were statistically significant, but in most cases, they were fairly subtle.

Compared to younger respondents, those 65 years of age and older felt that private charities should fund a slightly larger share of health and human services programs (Table 108).

The same was true for household income, as household income increased; respondents indicated that less funding for health and human services programs should be provided by the government and more should be provided by private charities (Table 109).

The relative share of funding that art and cultural programs should receive from the government decreased with respondent age. The older a respondent was, the more likely he/she was to feel that private charities should fund a larger share of these programs.

Compared to those with both less and more education, respondents with some college or a bachelor’s degree felt that a larger share of the funding for art and cultural programs should come from private charities and that less should come from the government (Table 110).

White respondents tended to place more emphasis on funding from private charities for health and human services, arts and cultural programs, and environmental programs than those in other racial/ethnic groups.

Asians and Pacific Islanders also placed more emphasis on funding from private charities for educational programs and art and cultural programs.

Hispanic and African American respondents emphasized government funding for educational programs and art and cultural programs more than other racial/ethnic groups. For example, they indicated that about half of the funding for the arts should come from government sources. In contrast, White and Asian/Pacific Islander respondents felt that closer to one-third of the funding for these programs should come from the government.

While all respondents agreed that the government should provide most of the funding for environmental programs, African American respondents placed even more emphasis on government funding for these programs. They indicated that, on average, 72 percent of environmental program funding should come from government sources. In contrast, respondents in other racial/ethnic groups indicated that 60-62 percent of funding for environmental programs should come from government sources (Table 111).

Overall, African Americans were the most likely to indicate that the majority of funding for educational programs, health and human services, and environmental programs should come from the government instead of private charities.

Asians and Pacific Islanders were more inclined than other racial and ethnic groups to state that the majority of funding for arts and cultural programs should come from private charities.


Respondents who selected ―other religions‖ or no religious preference placed more emphasis on government funding for health and human services than other respondents (Table 113).

Table 108: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Age

Under 40 years old 40 to 64 years old 65 years

old and older

Mean N Mean N Mean N


Government 78.9 305 73.5 467 69.9 130

Private Charities 23.1 305 28.9 466 30.1 130


Government 71.6 316 69.6 473 64.4 136

Private Charities* 28.3 315 30.1 473 36.4 136


Government* 43.2 315 36.6 461 35.3 133



Government 61.5 307 62.7 476 62.7 133



Table 109: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs Household Income


$100,000 or more

Mean N Mean N Mean N


Government 73.7 285 75.8 230 72.5 168



Government* 71.7 290 69.8 237 64.7 178



Government 40.5 283 36.7 242 37.5 175



Government 62.5 290 61.2 244 59.9 174



Table 110: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Educational Attainment

High school or less


Degree Graduate Degree

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N


Government 75.6 329 72.6 359 71.1 192 75.2 91

Private Charities 24.4 329 27.4 359 28.3 192 24.8 91


Government 71.3 335 69.0 379 66.0 194 71.6 90



Government* 42.4 329 35.5 359 37.6 196 43.3 93

Private Charities* 57.3 329 64.4 359 62.4 196 56.7 93


Government 64.4 325 61.0 369 57.8 198 63.8 93



Table 111: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic


Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N

Educational Government* 73.0 549 82.1 78 77.8 182 68.0 100


Programs Private Charities* 26.9 549 17.9 78 22.2 182 32.4 100


Government* 64.7 557 82.6 78 75.0 186 75.0 109



Government* 36.8 566 50.5 78 47.0 176 32.0 104



Government* 61.1 568 71.5 77 62.3 177 59.7 110



Table 112: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Gender

Male Female

Mean N Mean N

Educational Programs Government 71.5 374 75.0 607

Private Charities 28.2 373 25.0 607

Health and Human Services Government 67.6 375 70.3 632


Arts and Culture Programs Government 39.0 369 39.2 614


Environmental Programs Government 62.4 381 61.4 610


Table 113: Mean Percentage of Funding for Social Programs by Religious Preference


Christian Other


Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N


Government 69.5 220 76.2 260 72.5 147 78.4 98 74.2 190

Private Charities 30.2 220 23.8 260 27.5 147 21.6 98 25.8 190


Government* 66.9 223 67.4 280 66.2 153 74.8 103 73.2 183



Government 34.8 217 40.9 258 37.5 150 34.6 108 41.2 186



Government 63.3 211 57.9 263 64.2 147 62.2 115 62.6 188




Section 13: Analysis of Age and Income Oversamples In order to ensure that the number of interviews with older (65 years or age and older) and wealthier (household incomes of $100,000 or more) respondents was large enough to provide reliable results, these two groups were oversampled, (For a description of the oversampling process, see Section 1, page 4). These sub-groups analyses include respondents from the main sample as well as the additional respondents from the age and income oversamples. Because of these additional cases, some results will differ slightly from the main sample analysis. The oversample analysis provides more precise estimates of population values for older and wealthier residents of the Sacramento Region. The following discussion describes the analysis of these two subgroups, including an overview of the differences in the demographic characteristics.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in the Age Oversample

Nearly one-half of the age oversample respondents were between the ages of 65 and 74 years. Thirty-one percent were between the ages of 75 and 84. Sixteen percent were over 85 years of age. Eight percent of the age oversample respondents indicated that they were 65 years of age or older, but declined to provide their age.

Eight out of ten (82%) respondents in the age oversample were White, compared to 61 percent of respondents in the main sample of the Sacramento region.

Respondents in the age oversample were less likely than respondents in the main sample of the region to have household incomes of more than $100,000. Twelve percent of age oversample respondents had household incomes of more than $100,000, compared to 16 percent of main sample respondents.

Length of residency was longer for the age oversample (67 years) compared with the region as a whole (48 years).

Age oversample respondents were much more likely to be retired. Eighty-two percent of respondents in the age oversample were retired, compared with only 18 percent for the region.

Respondents in the age oversample were slightly more likely than respondents from the main sample of the region to report that they attend religious services once a week.

Age oversample respondents were more likely to state they were Protestant (37%) than the region as a whole (23%) (Table 114).


Table 114: Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and Age Oversample

Sacramento Region Age Oversample

Number Percent Number Percent

Respondent Age * 18-64 940 76.2% -- --

(Sacramento region mean age = 47 )

65-74 101 8.2% 92 45.1%

75-84 56 4.5% 63 30.9% (Age oversample mean age = 75)

Over 85 21 1.7% 33 16.2%

Don't know / Refused 115 9.3% 16 7.8%

Total 1,233 100.0% 204 100.0%

Respondent Male 427 34.7% 79 37.1%

Gender Female 804 65.3% 134 62.9%

Total 1,231 100.0% 213 100.0%

Respondent White 712 60.8% 161 81.7%

Race/Ethnicity* Black/African American 83 7.0% 13 6.6%

Hispanic 178 15.2% 11 5.6%

American Indian/Alaskan Native† 7 0.6% 0 0.0%

Asian 138 11.8% 6 3.0%

Pacific Islander 8 0.7% 6 3.0%

Other race† 5 0.4% 0 0.0%

Multiracial† 40 3.4% 0 0.0%

Total 1,171 100.0% 197 100.0%

Household Less than $20,000 131 10.6% 13 6.1%

Income* $20,000 but less than $30,000 70 5.7% 23 10.8%

$30,000 but less than $50,000 163 13.2% 25 11.7%

$50,000 but less than $75,000 145 11.8% 27 12.7%

$75,000 but less than $100,000 121 9.8% 15 7.0%

$100,000 but less than $150,000 129 10.5% 15 7.0%

$150,000 but less than $200,000 49 4.0% 5 2.3%

$200,000 or more 22 1.8% 6 2.8%


Total 1,233 100.0% 213 100.0%

Respondent Less than high school 96 7.8% 13 6.1%

Education High school diploma or GED 329 26.7% 46 21.6%

Some college 444 36.0% 75 35.2%

Bachelor’s degrees 232 18.8% 40 18.8%

Graduate or professional degrees 110 8.9% 33 15.5%


Total 1,233 100.0% 213 100.0%

* Indicates a statistically significant difference between groups (p ≤ .05) using Chi-Square. † Caution should be used due to the small number of cases


Table 114 (continued): Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and Age Oversample

Sacramento Region Age Oversample


Respondent Years Less than 5 years 158 12.8% 23 10.8%

of Residence in the Sacramento region*

6 to 10 years 187 15.2% 22 10.3%

11 to 15 years 147 11.9% 17 8.0% (mean for Sacramento Region = 48 years )

16 to 20 years 163 13.2% 8 3.8%

21 to 25 years 113 9.2% 8 3.8%

26 to 30 years 101 8.2% 13 6.1% (mean for Age oversample = 67 years) 31 to 40 years 148 12.0% 27 12.7%

41 to 50 years 85 6.9% 36 16.9%

More than 50 years 98 7.9% 52 24.4%


Total 1,233 100.0% 213 100.0%

Respondent Full-time 550 45.9% 13 6.2%

Employment Part-time 145 12.1% 10 4.8%

Status* Not employed 229 19.1% 8 3.8%

Retired 219 18.3% 174 82.9%

Disabled 55 4.6% 5 2.4%

Total 1,198 100.0% 210 100.0%

Religious Once a week 390 32.4% 70 34.0%

Attendance* Almost every week 99 8.2% 14 6.8%

About once a month 135 11.2% 12 5.8%

Seldom 262 21.7% 62 30.1%

Never 318 26.4% 48 23.3%

Total 1,203 100.0% 206 100.0%

Religious Protestant 253 22.5% 74 37.4%

Preference* Catholic 333 29.6% 39 19.7%

Mormon/Latter Day Saint 21 1.8% 9 4.5%

Quaker† 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

Jehovah’s Witness† 13 1.2% 3 1.5%

Nondenominational Christian 181 16.1% 18 9.1%

Jewish† 8 0.7% 3 1.5%

Muslim/Islamic† 15 1.4% 1 0.5%

Other 65 5.8% 11 5.6%

No Religious Preference 237 21.0% 40 20.2%

Total 1,127 100.0% 198 100.0%



Subgroup Analysis by Age

There was less difference between older and younger respondents than might be expected. The following discussion describes those areas where respondents 65 years of age or older differed significantly from younger respondents.

Older respondents (68%) were slightly more likely to have donated to charitable organizations than younger respondents (61%) (Table 115).

Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to donate to health care or medical research organizations, organizations that support or promote the arts or culture, organizations that improve neighborhoods and communities, and organizations that preserve the environment (Table 116).

Compared to younger respondents, they were less likely to donate to organizations like the United Way, the United Jewish Appeal, the Catholic Charities or local community foundations that serve a combination of purposes (Table 117).

Several motivations for giving were less important for older respondents than for younger respondents: reciprocity, being asked to give by a celebrity, being asked to give by a friend or associate, tax benefits, directly helping, giving back to society, and being asked by an employer (Table 118).

A smaller percentage of older respondents’ donations were to organizations in the Sacramento region and a larger percentage was to national organizations outside California (Table 119).

Compared to younger respondents, they placed less importance on donating to local charitable organizations (Table 120).

Older respondents were less likely than younger respondents to give through payroll deductions, donate on-line, through street collection, and through texting adding to their wireless bill.

They were more likely than younger respondents to give in response to a mailed or telephone request (Table 121).

They were more likely than younger respondents to receive information about charities through a charity’s direct mail or newspapers. They were less likely than younger respondents to receive information through websites (Table 122).

There were only two reasons for not donating more where older respondents differed from younger respondents. Older respondents were more likely to say that they did not donate more because some charities have high administrative costs. They were less likely to say that they would rather spend money in other ways (Table 123).

Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to say that they donated the same amount in 2008 as they did in 2009.

They were more likely than younger respondents to say that they planned to donate the same or less in 2010 as they did in 2009 (Table 124).

Older respondents were less trusting of charities than younger respondents. Compared to younger respondents, they were more likely to say charitable


organizations are not doing a good job running their programs and services and spending their money wisely.

They had less confidence in charitable organizations than younger respondents. Older respondents were more likely to say ―don’t know‖ than younger respondents (Table 125).

Among respondents who had not donated in 2009, more than one-half of those 65 years of age and over had donated in the past (compared to 35% of those under 65) (Table 126).

Reasons for not giving in 2009 and factors that prevented respondents from giving were no different for older respondents than they were for younger respondents. (Table 127 and Table 128).

Compared to younger respondents, those 65 years of age and older put slightly more emphasis on funding from private charities for educational programs and health and human services (Table 129).

Older respondents were much more likely to have an estate plan or will than younger respondents. Seventy-four percent of respondents 65 years of age or older indicated that they had an estate plan or will, compared to 39 percent of those under 65 years of age. However, older respondents were no more or less likely than younger respondents to include planned donations to charity in their estate plan or will. Nineteen percent of respondents 65 years of age or older included planned donations to a charity in their estate plan or will (Table 130).

Table 115: Charitable Donations by Age

Under 65 years of age

65 years of age or older

Percent Number of cases Percent

Number of cases

During the year 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) donate money, assets, or property/goods with a combined value of more than $25 to religious or charitable organizations?*

Yes 60.8% 573 67.8% 244

No 39.2% 370 32.2% 116

Total 100.0% 943 100.0% 360



Table 116: Percent Donating to Each Recipient Type by Age



Religious 52.4% 58.0%

Combination of Needs* 45.6% 38.2%

Basic needs 63.7% 68.3%

Health* 43.8% 59.5%

Education 35.0% 32.3%

Youth & family 31.8% 32.6%

Art & culture* 16.9% 23.4%

Neighborhood & community* 13.9% 19.9%

Preserve environment* 24.7% 36.3%

International 35.3% 32.1%

Other organizations 6.8% 6.0%



Table 117: Mean Donation Amounts by Age

Under 65 years of age 65 years of age or older

Mean Standard Deviation

Number of cases Mean

Standard Deviation

Number of cases

All organizations $1,719 $2,646 563 $1,697 $2,951 195

Secular organizations $1,091 $2,017 448 $1,037 $2,385 163

Religious $1,524 $2,107 229 $1,521 $2,353 92

Combination of needs $617 $1,267 237 $588 $1,136 59

Basic needs $398 $670 306 $407 $1,111 100

Health $300 $869 231 $254 $593 96

Education $487 $811 187 $605 $1,154 53

Youth & family $278 $699 164 $253 $524 44

Art & culture $379 $857 93 $199 $289 36

Neighborhood & community $310 $693 60 $117 $111 33

Preserve environment $177 $385 123 $261 $813 59

International $294 $737 170 $372 $1,124 54

Other organizations $504 $696 41 $158 $139 8


Table 118: Motivations for Giving by Age

Under 65

years of age 65 years of age or older


Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)*

67.6% 25.0% 64.5% 22.8%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)*

31.2% 55.9% 24.3% 54.4%



Tax benefits* 30.9% 54.1% 24.8% 52.7%

Employer asked* 9.9% 58.0% 6.1% 38.5%


47.5% 36.5% 50.8% 31.7%


42.4% 38.1% 46.8% 32.9%

Religious belief* 48.0% 35.6% 53.6% 27.0%

Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)

31.8% 46.4% 35.0% 39.2%


34.8% 40.8% 26.5% 38.8%




Table 119: Average Percentage of Donations to Different Areas by Age



Mean In the Sacramento region* 65.3 49.6

Outside the Sacramento region, but in California 10.6 13.6

Outside California, but in the U.S.* 8.7 15.3

Outside the U.S. 7.4 5.7

Standard deviation

In the Sacramento region 39.1 42.5


Outside California, but in the U.S. 20.8 28.4




Table 120: Importance of Donating to Local Charitable Organizations by Age



How important is it to you to donate to local charitable organizations?*

Very important 54.9% 46.1%

Somewhat important 37.8% 39.8%

Somewhat unimportant 5.6% 9.8%

Very unimportant 1.6% 4.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%




Table 121: Methods of Giving by Age



Through payroll deductions* 18.1% 4.5%

By responding to a request that was received by mail* 39.5% 60.2%

By responding to a telephone request* 14.0% 20.2%

By responding to a TV or radio request 13.7% 15.7%

By donating on-line* 24.9% 13.5%

By donating through a religious organization 45.7% 50.6%

By street collection* 33.5% 25.8%

By donating through social media such as Facebook/Twitter 4.8% 3.4%

By donating through texting adding to your wireless bill* 5.2% 1.1%

Other 19.3% 16.9%



NOTE: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could choose more than one response.

Table 122: Sources of Information by Age



Television 17.8% 19.5%

Newspapers* 8.7% 15.0%

Charity's direct mail to you* 32.0% 53.0%

Charity's email to you 6.8% 5.6%

Charity's own website* 13.9% 6.0%

Internet but not charity's website* 21.0% 11.6%

Other 19.3% 16.9%




Table 123: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Age



I can’t afford to give more. 75.3% 72.0%

I would rather spend money in other ways.* 48.6% 29.6%

I don’t think charities deserve my support. 14.6% 14.3%

No one asked me to give. I would, but just don't seem to get around to it. 25.5% 22.5%

I don’t know enough about charities. 26.2% 29.9%

I already support too many. 57.2% 63.3%

I give to my church. 58.9% 62.0%

I think some charities have high administrative costs.* 83.6% 93.2%

I’m not sure what they did with my last gift. 53.8% 53.0%





Table 124: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Age



Did you donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2008?*

Donated more 29.6% 25.8%

Donated less 24.5% 19.0%

Donated the same 45.9% 55.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


This year do you plan to donate more, less or the same as you did in 2009?*

Donate more 22.2% 14.8%

Donate less 18.8% 22.0%

Donate the same 58.9% 63.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%




Table 125: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Age



Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs and services?*

Very good 27.9% 25.4%




Don’t know 15.5% 21.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?*

Very good 20.6% 18.3%




Don’t know 22.5% 25.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable organizations?*





Don’t know 6.1% 10.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national charities?*

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more

39.2% 31.5%



Don’t know 12.7% 20.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are ethical?*


Agree 51.1% 42.1%

Disagree 3.8% 4.9%


Don’t know 19.0% 28.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


Does your general trust in charities influence your charitable giving?

Yes 74.8% 75.5%

No 16.5% 12.3%

Don’t know 8.7% 12.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%





Don’t know 22.2% 29.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



NOTE: Respondents who declined to answer the question were excluded from analysis. However, since there were a substantial number of ―don’t know‖ responses, they were included as a separate category.


Table 126: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Age

Under 65 years of age 65 years of age or older

Percent

Number of cases Percent

Number of cases

Have you ever donated to a non-profit or charitable organization?*

Yes 35.0% 136 51.2% 62

No 65.0% 253 48.8% 59

Total 100.0% 389 100.0% 121


Table 127: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Age



No one personally asked us to give 13.2% 11.3%

We could not afford to give money in 2009 71.1% 62.9%

We would rather volunteer than give money 11.0% 4.8%

We were being asked to give too frequently 4.4% 6.5%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently 7.4% 4.8%

We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies 3.7% 1.6%

Other 14.7% 12.7%



NOTE: This question was asked of respondents who did not donate in 2009 but who had given in the past. Percents sum to more

than 100 because respondents could choose more than one answer.

Table 128: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Age



Financial situation 69.1% 69.0%

Distrust that donations will be well spent 8.8% 8.6%

Lack of knowledge about charities 2.4% 3.4%

Lack of time to research charities 0.8% 1.7%

Just choose not to give 18.9% 17.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


NOTE: This question was asked of respondents who did not donate in 2009 and who had never given in the past.

Table 129: Percentage of Program Funding from Government and Charities by Age

Mean Number of cases






Government* 75.1 70.2 879 268

Private Charities* 24.8 29.8 879 268


Government* 70.4 63.8 893 272

Private Charities* 29.4 36.6 892 272


Government 39.8 37.5 881 264

Private Charities 60.1 62.5 881 264


Government 62.3 61.5 891 269




Table 130: Planned Giving by Age



Do you, a spouse or partner have an estate plan or will?*

Yes 39.4% 73.8%

No 60.6% 26.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Number of cases 1,063 378

Does your estate plan or will include planned donations to a charity?

Yes 21.6% 18.8%

No 78.4% 81.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in the Income Oversample

Respondents in the income oversample were slightly older than respondents in the region as a whole.

Three-quarters (75%) of respondents in the income oversample were White compared with 61 percent in the region.

One-half (50%) of respondents in the income oversample had household incomes between $100,000 and $150,000.

Significantly more respondents in the income oversample had a college degree (57%) than respondents in the main sample (28%).

More respondents in the income oversample (34%) were retired compared to the region (18%).

One-third (34%) of respondents in the income oversample stated they seldom attend religious services. This was higher than the region as a whole (22%).

Respondents in the income oversample were slightly more likely to be Protestant than those in the region (27% vs. 23%) (Table 131).


Table 131: Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and Income Oversample

Sacramento Region Income Oversample


Respondent Age*

18-24† 89 7.2% 4 1.8%

25-34 183 14.9% 11 4.8%

35-44 287 23.3% 39 17.1% (Sacramento region mean age = 47 )

45-54 186 15.1% 45 19.7%

55-59 102 8.3% 25 11.0%

60-64 93 7.6% 20 8.8% (Income oversample mean age = 57)

65-74 101 8.2% 40 17.5%

75-84 56 4.5% 16 7.0%

Over 85 21 1.7% 9 3.9%


Total 1,233 100.0% 228 100.0%

Respondent Male 427 34.7% 86 37.7%

Gender Female 804 65.3% 142 62.3%

Total 1,231 100.0% 228 100.0%

Respondent White 712 60.8% 162 74.7%

Race/Ethnicity* Black/African American 83 7.0% 11 5.1%

Hispanic 178 15.2% 24 11.1%


Asian 138 11.8% 13 6.0%


Other race† 5 0.4% 0 0.0%

Multiracial† 40 3.4% 0 0.0%

Total 1,171 100.0% 217 100.0%

Household Less than $100,000 630 51.1% -- --

Income* $100,000 but less than $150,000 129 10.5% 104 49.5%

$150,000 but less than $200,000 49 4.0% 44 21.0%

$200,000 or more 22 1.8% 14 6.7%


Total 1,233 100.0% 210 100.0%

Respondent Less than high school† 96 7.8% 4 1.8%

Education* High school diploma or GED 329 26.7% 30 13.2%

Some college 444 36.0% 58 25.4%




Total 1,233 100.0% 228 100.0%


† Caution should be used due to the small number of cases


Table 131 (continued): Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and Income Oversample

Sacramento Region Income Oversample


Respondent Years of Residence in the Sacramento region

Less than 5 years 158 12.8% 25 11.0%

6 to 10 years 187 15.2% 33 14.5%

11 to 15 years 147 11.9% 24 10.5% (mean for Sacramento Region = 48 years )

16 to 20 years 163 13.2% 26 11.4%

21 to 25 years 113 9.2% 24 10.5% (mean for Income oversample = 43 years)

26 to 30 years 101 8.2% 17 7.5%

31 to 40 years 148 12.0% 24 10.5%

41 to 50 years 85 6.9% 27 11.8%

More than 50 years 98 7.9% 24 10.5%

Don't know / Refused† 33 2.7% 4 1.8%

Total 1,233 100.0% 228 100.0%

Respondent Full-time 550 45.9% 109 48.0%

Employment Part-time 145 12.1% 16 7.0%

Status* Not employed 229 19.1% 21 9.3%

Retired 219 18.3% 78 34.4%

Disabled† 55 4.6% 3 1.3%

Total 1,198 100.0% 227 100.0%

Religious Once a week 390 32.4% 67 29.9%

Attendance* Almost every week 99 8.2% 16 7.1%


Seldom 262 21.7% 75 33.5%

Never 318 26.4% 50 22.3%

Total 1,203 100.0% 224 100.0%

Religious Protestant 253 22.5% 57 26.6%

Preference* Catholic 333 29.6% 52 24.3%


Quaker† 1 0.1% 0 0.0%



Jewish† 8 0.7% 1 0.5%


Other 65 5.8% 11 5.1%


Total 1,127 100.0% 214 100.0%



Subgroup Analysis by Household Income

Many giving behaviors—including giving rates, average per household donation amounts, and the types of organizations to which donations were made—were strongly related to income. However, a number of other measures, including motivations, emphasis on local charities, and trust and confidence in charitable organizations, show very little difference between respondents from households with incomes of $100,000 or more and those from households with incomes of $100,000 or less. The following discussion describes those areas where respondents from higher income households ($100,000 or more) differed significantly from respondents from lower income households (less than $100,000) and points out the areas where there were no significant differences by income level.

Households with incomes of $100,000 or more were much more likely to have donated to a charity. Ninety-three percent of higher income households donated to a charity in 2009, compared to 53 percent of lower income households (Table 132).

Households with incomes of $100,000 or more were nearly twice as likely to have made donations toward educational purposes as households with incomes below $100,000. They were also more likely to have donated to organizations that promote the arts and culture, those that serve a combination of needs, those that meet basic needs, health organizations, and international causes (Table 133).

The average amount donated by higher income households ($2,361) was nearly twice the size of donations from lower income households ($1,215).

Higher income households made substantially larger donations to organizations that provide youth and family services ($419 compared to $117). Their donations to organizations serving a combination of needs, basic needs, and those promoting art and culture were roughly twice the size of donations from households with incomes less than $100,000 (Table 134).

A few motivations were less important to higher income households, they include: being asked to give by a celebrity, reciprocity, family tradition, and feeling that charities are more effective at providing public services than government or private businesses (Table 135).

Although higher income households did not differ in the percentage of their donations that went to local charities, they placed slightly more emphasis on the importance of donating to local charitable organizations (Table 137).

Households with incomes of $100,000 or more were more likely to donate through payroll deductions and online. They were less likely to donate through street collection (Table 138).

Higher income households were more likely to receive information about charities through email from charities (Table 139).

In terms of reasons for not donating more, households with incomes of $100,000 or more were less likely to say that they can’t afford to give more. They were also less likely to say that no one asked them to give (Table 140).

Higher income households were more likely than lower income households to report donating more in 2008 than they did in 2009. Compared to lower income


households, they were also more likely to plan to donate the same amount in 2010 as they did in 2009 (Table 141).

Respondents in households with incomes of $100,000 or more had slightly higher confidence levels in charitable organizations than those in households with incomes below $100,000. Compared to respondents in lower income households, they were less likely to trust national charities more than local charities (Table 142).

Among respondents who had not donated in 2009, those in households with incomes of $100,000 or more were more likely to have donated in the past (Table 143).

Neither the reasons for not donating in 2009, nor factors that prevented respondents from giving had statistically significant differences by income level.

Income level was not related to the percentage of program funding that respondents felt should come from government and charities.

Compared to respondents in households with incomes of less than $100,000, respondents in households with incomes of $100,000 or more were more likely to have an estate plan or will (Table 147). They did not differ in terms of whether or not the estate plan or will included planned donations to charity.

Table 132: Charitable Donations by Household Income*

Under $100,000 $100,000 or more

Percent Number of cases Percent

Number of cases

During the year 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) donate money, assets, or property/goods with a combined value of more than $25 to religious or charitable organizations?

Yes 52.8% 339 92.8% 335

No 47.2% 303 7.2% 26

Total 100.0% 642 100.0% 361


Table 133: Percent Donating to Each Recipient Type by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Religious 52.2% 53.8%

Combination of needs* 37.8% 51.2%

Basic needs* 60.5% 69.1%

Health* 39.7% 53.9%

Education* 23.3% 44.8%

Youth & family 32.3% 33.2%

Art & culture* 14.7% 23.1%

Neighborhood & community 14.0% 16.4%

Preserve environment 22.7% 27.6%

International* 30.6% 39.1%

Other organizations 6.0% 6.5%




Table 134: Mean Donation Amounts by Household Income

Under $100,000 $100,000 or more

Mean Standard Deviation

Number of cases Mean

Standard Deviation

Number of cases

All organizations* $1,215 $2,083 340 $2,361 $3,147 284

Secular organizations* $670 $1,343 263 $1,502 $2,206 270

Religious $1,334 $1,933 153 $1,795 $2,420 134

Combination of needs* $360 $642 116 $800 $1,591 134

Basic needs* $277 $608 177 $532 $1,006 169

Health $230 $494 116 $371 $1,071 149

Education $368 $723 71 $542 $976 130

Youth & family* $117 $172 99 $419 $735 84

Art & culture* $133 $171 47 $237 $246 60

Neighborhood & community $209 $482 41 $187 $194 37

Preserve environment $125 $311 75 $208 $359 73

International $315 $842 82 $259 $578 112

Other organizations $216 $208 17 $329 $529 20


Table 135: Motivations for Giving by Household Income

Under $100,000 $100,000 or more


Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) 68.5% 22.6% 64.5% 28.7%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 33.2% 52.7% 27.3% 56.1%


Giving back (giving back to society) 68.3% 23.5% 72.9% 20.5%

Tax benefits 29.8% 53.6% 33.0% 54.6%

Employer asked 10.0% 51.3% 7.4% 58.7%


48.6% 35.7% 52.6% 32.4%


44.1% 34.9% 38.5% 45.1%

Religious belief 53.0% 30.3% 47.6% 35.2%


35.6% 40.6% 27.1% 51.6%


39.4% 37.2% 26.9% 45.5%



NOTE: Table data reflects the percent of respondents saying that this was a major or minor motivation for giving (as opposed to

neither).


Table 136: Average Percentage of Donations to Different Areas by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Mean In the Sacramento region 62.7 64.0




Standard deviation

In the Sacramento region 40.9 38.3





Table 137: Importance of Donating to Local Charitable Organizations by Household Income*

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

How important is it to you to donate to local charitable organizations?*

Very important 55.7% 49.5%

Somewhat important 34.6% 43.2%

Somewhat unimportant 7.9% 4.5%

Very unimportant 1.8% 2.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



Table 138: Methods of Giving by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Through payroll deductions* 11.2% 18.3%

By responding to a request that was received by mail 45.0% 44.2%

By responding to a telephone request 14.6% 18.0%

By responding to a TV or radio request 13.2% 14.2%

By donating on-line* 17.1% 30.6%

By donating through a religious organization 45.9% 46.6%

By street collection* 35.7% 28.8%

By donating through social media such as Facebook/Twitter 4.7% 5.3%

By donating through texting adding to your wireless bill 4.0% 5.6%

Other* 14.4% 26.3%





Table 139: Sources of Information by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Television 19.9% 15.9% Newspapers 9.4% 12.1% Charity's direct mail to you 37.7% 32.9% Charity's email to you* 4.0% 9.7% Charity's own website 11.9% 13.6% Internet but not charity's website 16.9% 22.4% Other* 14.4% 26.3% Number of cases 403 339



Table 140: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

I can’t afford to give more.* 80.4% 67.0%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 44.4% 42.6%

I don’t think charities deserve my support. 16.2% 11.8%

No one asked me to give. I would, but just don't seem to get around to it.* 29.3% 21.6%

I don’t know enough about charities. 29.2% 23.8%

I already support too many. 56.8% 57.0%

I give to my church. 61.3% 56.9%

I think some charities have high administrative costs. 85.5% 86.1%

I’m not sure what they did with my last gift. 58.2% 50.8%




Table 141: Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Did you donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2008?*

Donated more 23.1% 34.9%

Donated less 25.6% 17.8%

Donated the same 51.3% 47.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


This year do you plan to donate more, less or the same as you did in 2009?*

Donate more 24.5% 17.9%

Donate less 23.0% 19.1%

Donate the same 52.5% 63.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0%




Table 142: Trust in Charitable Organizations by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs and services?

Very good 28.0% 27.4%




Don’t know 15.1% 16.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?

Very good 19.7% 20.1%




Don’t know 23.5% 23.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable organizations?*






Total 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national charities?*

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more 36.9% 39.2%



Don’t know 12.0% 15.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are ethical?


Agree 50.1% 44.0%

Disagree 6.0% 3.6%


Don’t know 17.9% 22.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



Yes 75.6% 75.8%

No 14.6% 15.3%


Total 100.0% 100.0%





Don’t know 24.1% 20.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



NOTE: Respondents who declined to answer the question were excluded from analysis. However, since there were a substantial number of ―don’t know‖ responses, they were included as a separate category.


Table 143: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 by Household Income

Under $100,000 $100,000 or more

Percent


Number of cases


Yes 38.0% 125 57.1% 16

No 62.0% 204 42.9% 12

Total 100.0% 329 100.0% 28


Table 144: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

No one personally asked us to give 19.0% 6.3%

We could not afford to give money in 2009 66.7% 50.0%

We would rather volunteer than give money 12.0% 12.5%

We were being asked to give too frequently 7.2% 0.0%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently 9.6% 6.3%

We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies 4.0% 6.3%

Other 15.2% 18.8%


Number of cases 125-126 16

NOTE: This question was asked of respondents who did not donate in 2009 but who had given in the past. Percents sum to more than 100 because respondents could choose more than one answer.

Table 145: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Financial situation 70.0% 50.0%

Distrust that donations will be well spent 9.0% 16.7%

Lack of knowledge about charities 3.5% 0.0%

Lack of time to research charities 1.0% 0.0%

Just choose not to give 16.5% 33.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



Table 146: Percentage of Program Funding from Government and Charities by Household Income

Mean Number of cases

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more


Government 73.6 75.5 589 292



Government 70.0 66.9 602 300



Government 38.8 39.7 597 297



Government 61.4 62.1 610 300




Table 147: Planned Giving by Household Income

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more


Yes 39.0% 70.8%

No 61.0% 29.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%



Yes 19.9% 22.8%

No 80.1% 77.2%

Total 100.0% 100.0%




Section 14: Analysis of New Wealth Area Households

In order to find out more about households in several new wealth areas in the Sacramento region, 380 additional interviews were conducted with households in El Dorado Hills, Granite Bay, Folsom, and Rocklin.

23

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in the New Wealth Areas

Respondents in the new wealth areas differed from those in the overall Sacramento region in several respects (Table 148):

Respondents in the new wealth areas were older than respondents from throughout the region. Eighty-four percent were 40 years of age or older, compared to 66 percent for the region as a whole.

Compared to respondents from the region as a whole, there were more male respondents in the new wealth area. Forty-one percent of the new wealth area respondents were male, compared to 35 percent for the region.

Respondents in the new wealth areas were more likely to be White. Eighty-three percent of the new wealth area respondents were White, compared to 61 percent for the region.

They were more likely to have household incomes of $100,000 or more. Thirty-one percent of the new wealth respondents had household incomes of $100,000 or more, compared to 16 percent for the region.

Respondents in the new wealth areas had higher educational levels. Fifty-nine percent of the new wealth respondents had at least a college degree, compared to 28 percent of respondents in the region.

Compared to respondents in the region as a whole, new wealth respondents were slightly more likely to have lived in the Sacramento region for 10 years or less. Thirty-five percent of the new wealth respondents had lived in the Sacramento region for less than ten years, compared to 28 percent of respondents in the region.

Respondents in the new wealth areas were more likely than respondents in the region to be retired. Twenty-nine percent of respondents in the new wealth areas were retired compared to 18 percent for the region as a whole.

They were also less likely to be unemployed. Twelve percent of new wealth respondents were not employed compared with 19 percent of respondents in the region as a whole.

They were more likely to select Protestant or non-denominational Christian as a religious preference.

23

The postal zip codes for these areas were 95762, 95630, 95746, 95677, and 95765.


Table 148: Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas

Sacramento Region New Wealth Areas


Respondent Age* (Sacramento region mean age = 47 )

(New wealth area mean age = 54)

18-24 89 7.2% 7 1.8%

25-34 183 14.9% 17 4.5%

35-44 287 23.3% 75 19.7%

45-54 186 15.1% 70 18.4%

55-59 102 8.3% 44 11.6%

60-64 93 7.6% 34 8.9%

65-74 101 8.2% 46 12.1%

75-84 56 4.5% 27 7.1%

Over 85 21 1.7% 11 2.9%


Total 1,233 100.0% 380 100.0%

Respondent Gender*

Male 427 34.7% 154 40.7%

Female 804 65.3% 224 59.3%

Total 1,231 100.0% 378 100.0%

Respondent Race/Ethnicity

White 712 60.8% 288 83.2%

Black/African American 83 7.0% 5 1.4%

Hispanic 178 15.2% 13 3.8%


Asian 138 11.8% 18 5.2%


Other race† 5 0.4% 0 0.0%

Multiracial 40 3.4% 6 1.7%

Total 1,171 100.0% 346 100.0%

Household Income*

Less than $20,000 131 10.6% 14 3.7%

$20,000 but less than $30,000 70 5.7% 11 2.9%

$30,000 but less than $50,000 163 13.2% 28 7.4%

$50,000 but less than $75,000 145 11.8% 46 12.1%

$75,000 but less than $100,000 121 9.8% 43 11.3%

$100,000 but less than $150,000 129 10.5% 62 16.3%

$150,000 but less than $200,000 49 4.0% 34 8.9%

$200,000 or more 22 1.8% 22 5.8%


Total 1,233 100.0% 380 100.0%

Respondent Education*

Less than high school 96 7.8% 6 1.6%

High school diploma or GED 329 26.7% 31 8.2%

Some college 444 36.0% 107 28.2%




Total 1,233 100.0% 380 100.0%


† Caution should be used due to the small number of cases


Table 148 (continued): Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



Respondent Years of Residence in the Sacramento region*

(mean for Sacramento Region = 48 years )

(mean for new wealth area = 42 years)

Less than 5 years 158 12.8% 37 9.7%

6 to 10 years 187 15.2% 97 25.5%

11 to 15 years 147 11.9% 34 8.9%

16 to 20 years 163 13.2% 41 10.8%

21 to 25 years 113 9.2% 38 10.0%

26 to 30 years 101 8.2% 36 9.5%

31 to 40 years 148 12.0% 43 11.3%

41 to 50 years 85 6.9% 24 6.3%

More than 50 years 98 7.9% 22 5.8%


Total 1,233 100.0% 380 100.0%

Respondent Employment Status*

Full-time 550 45.9% 173 47.4%

Part-time 145 12.1% 35 9.6%

Not employed 229 19.1% 43 11.8%

Retired 219 18.3% 106 29.0%

Disabled 55 4.6% 8 2.2%

Total 1,198 100.0% 365 100.0%

Religious Attendance

Once a week 390 32.4% 111 30.8%

Almost every week 99 8.2% 28 7.8%


Seldom 262 21.7% 99 27.5%

Never 318 26.4% 84 23.3%

Total 1,203 100.0% 360 100.0%

Religious Preference*

Protestant 253 22.5% 89 26.1%

Catholic 333 29.6% 75 22.0%


Quaker† 1 0.1% 1 0.3%



Jewish† 8 0.7% 2 0.6%


Other 65 5.8% 23 6.7%


Total 1,127 100.0% 341 100.0%



Age and Income for the Three Targeted Samples

It is worth noting that while respondents from the new wealth areas were somewhat older and wealthier than respondents from the Sacramento region as a whole, they were also quite distinct from respondents in the age and income oversamples. It would be wrong to assume that the three targeted sample groups were identical. In some respects, respondents in the new wealth sample had more in common with respondents from throughout the region than they did with the oversamples.

Figure 30 shows that although the new wealth respondents were older than respondents from the Sacramento region, they were younger than respondents in the age and income oversamples. Only 22 percent of new wealth respondents were over 65 years of age, compared with the entire age oversample respondents (by definition) and 28 percent of the income oversample respondents. Similarly, although new wealth respondents were wealthier than respondents from the Sacramento region, they were markedly less wealthy than income oversample respondents, but wealthier than age oversample respondents.

Figure 30: Comparison of Age and Income for Respondents in the Sacramento Region, New Wealth, Age and Income Oversamples

Percent of Respondents Over 65 Years of Age Percent of Households with Incomes Over $100,000

14%22%

100%

28%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region

New

Wealth Sample

Age

Over-sample

Income

Over-sample

16%

31%

12%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region

New

Wealth Sample

Age

Over-sample

Income

Over-sample


Charitable Giving Behaviors of New Wealth Area Households

The following discussion describes ways in which the households in these new wealth areas differ significantly from households in the Sacramento region as a whole.

Households in the new wealth areas were significantly more likely to have donated to a charitable organization during 2009. Eighty-seven percent of these households donated, compared to 62 percent of households in the region (Table 149).

Households in the new wealth areas were more likely to make donations toward educational purposes and to donate to organizations promoting the arts and culture (Table 150).

Across all organization types, the average donation per donor household in the new wealth areas was larger ($1,985) than it was for the region as a whole ($1,511).

The average amount donated to religious organizations per donor household was higher in the new wealth areas ($1,946) than for the region as a whole ($1,338).

The average amount donated toward educational purposes per donor household was higher in the new wealth areas ($749) than for the region as a whole ($455) (Table 151).

Compared to the region as a whole, residents of the new wealth areas were more likely to say they are motivated to donate because charities provide services more effectively than government or private business. New wealth area residents were less motivated to give based on family tradition than were residents from the region as a whole (Table 152).

A larger share of donations from households in the new wealth areas went to charities outside of the Sacramento region, but in California (15% versus 11%) (Table 153).

Compared to the region as a whole, residents of the new wealth areas placed somewhat less emphasis on the importance of donating to local charitable organizations (Table 154).

Households in the new wealth areas were more likely to donate in response to a request that was received by mail or online than was the case for the region as a whole. They were less likely to donate through social media such as Facebook or Twitter (Table 155).

There were no statistically significant differences between households in the new wealth areas and those in the region as a whole in terms of their sources of information about charities (Table 156).

Respondents in the new wealth areas were more likely to say that one of the reasons they do not donate more to charities is that they already support too many (Table 157).

Respondents in the new wealth areas had somewhat less positive views of how well charitable organizations run their programs and services. Fourteen percent of respondents in new wealth areas evaluated charitable organization’s performance in


this area as ―not too good‖ or ―not at all good,‖ compared to eight percent of households in the Sacramento region (Table 159).

Respondents in the new wealth areas were also a little more critical of how wisely charitable organizations spend money. Twenty percent of respondents in the new wealth areas felt that charitable organizations do a ―not too good‖ or ―not at all good‖ job of spending money wisely, compared to 14 percent of households in the Sacramento region.

Respondents in the new wealth areas were somewhat more likely than those in the region as a whole to indicate that their general trust in charities influences their charitable giving (87% vs. 81%, respectively) (Table 159)

Compared to the region as a whole, households in the new wealth areas who had not donated during 2009 were much more likely to have donated in the past. Sixty-one percent of current non-donor households had donated in the past, compared to 36 percent of current non-donor households in the region (Table 160).

Non-donor households in the new wealth areas did not differ greatly from those in the region in terms of their reasons for not donating in 2009. They were somewhat less likely to say that they could not afford to give money in 2009 (Table 161).

Households in the new wealth areas that had never donated to a charity did not differ from those in the region in terms of the factors that prevented respondents from giving (Table 162).

Compared to respondents in the region as a whole, respondents in the new wealth areas felt that private charities should fund a slightly larger share of health and human service programs and art and cultural programs (Table 163).

Respondents in the new wealth areas were more likely to have an estate plan or will. Sixty-four percent of respondents in the new wealth areas have an estate plan or will, compared to 40 percent of respondents in the Sacramento region.

Among respondents who have an estate plan or will, those in the new wealth areas were less likely to have included planned donations in their estate plan or will (Table 164).

Table 149: Charitable Donations, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



During the year 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) donate money, assets, or property/goods with a combined value of more than $25 to religious or charitable organizations?*

Yes 754 61.6% 325 86.9%

No 469 38.4% 49 13.1%

Total 1,224 100.0% 374 100.0%



Table 150: Percent Donating to Each Recipient Type, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas


Yes No Total Yes No Total

Percent Religious 53.8% 46.2% 100.0% 54.0% 46.0% 100.0%

Combination of needs 44.0% 56.0% 100.0% 44.9% 55.1% 100.0%

Basic needs 62.9% 37.1% 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

Health 43.5% 56.5% 100.0% 47.6% 52.4% 100.0%

Education* 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% 40.5% 59.5% 100.0%

Youth & family 30.1% 69.9% 100.0% 31.6% 68.4% 100.0%

Art & culture* 15.6% 84.4% 100.0% 21.1% 78.9% 100.0%

Neighborhood & community 13.6% 86.4% 100.0% 12.1% 87.9% 100.0%

Preserve environment 24.5% 75.5% 100.0% 25.9% 74.1% 100.0%

International 34.0% 66.0% 100.0% 36.2% 63.8% 100.0%

Other organizations* 6.2% 93.8% 100.0% 14.5% 85.5% 100.0%

Number Religious 401 344 745 175 149 324

Combination of needs 323 412 735 142 174 316

Basic needs 459 270 729 214 107 321

Health 325 422 747 152 167 319

Education 247 494 740 130 191 321

Youth & family 224 520 744 101 219 320

Art & culture 116 630 746 67 251 318

Neighborhood & community 101 638 738 39 282 321

Preserve environment 178 550 729 83 237 320

International 253 492 745 114 201 315

Other organizations 47 707 754 47 278 325


Table 151: Mean Donation Amounts, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas


Mean Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation

All organizations* $1,511 $2,383 $1,985 $2,948

Secular organizations $1,009 $1,888 $1,265 $2,130

Religious* $1,338 $1,821 $1,946 $2,562

Combination of needs $606 $1,285 $597 $1,279

Basic needs $344 $630 $417 $644

Health $221 $498 $260 $537

Education* $455 $685 $749 $1,421

Youth & family $261 $703 $270 $659

Art & culture $393 $885 $296 $403

Neighborhood & community $269 $649 $451 $973

Preserve environment $196 $621 $189 $237

International $254 $621 $290 $404

Other organizations $563 $731 $506 $958



Table 152: Motivations for Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas


Major Motivation

Minor Motivation

Major Motivation

Minor Motivation

Percent* Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)

66.7% 24.0% 68.9% 24.1%


31.0% 52.3% 26.3% 59.1%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 2.9% 57.0% 2.2% 55.0% Giving back (giving back to society) 69.1% 23.2% 74.1% 18.8% Tax benefits 31.3% 52.9% 31.6% 52.6% Employer asked 10.0% 55.1% 6.9% 56.4% For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)

47.2% 36.1% 53.9% 31.9%


43.5% 36.7% 52.1% 32.8%

Religious belief 50.7% 34.2% 44.1% 37.9% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)*

34.4% 44.1% 24.8% 54.0%


35.9% 39.8% 29.5% 44.7%

Number Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)

480 172 217 76


230 388 84 189

Being asked to give by a celebrity 22 423 7 177 Giving back (giving back to society) 497 167 237 60 Tax benefits 228 286 102 170 Employer asked 73 403 22 181 For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)

350 267 171 101


315 266 162 102

Religious belief 377 255 142 122 Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)

257 329 80 174


265 294 95 144


Table 153: Average Percentage of Donations to Different Areas, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas


Mean

Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation

In the Sacramento region 63.0 40.7 60.3 39.1

Outside the Sacramento region, but in California* 11.2 24.2 15.1 27.4

Outside California, but in the US 9.0 22.0 11.2 22.4

Outside the US 6.8 18.7 6.7 18.0



Table 154: Importance of Donating to Local Charitable Organizations, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



Importance of donating to local charitable organizations*

Very important 391 53.2% 142 44.4%

Somewhat important 281 38.1% 142 44.4%

Somewhat unimportant 48 6.5% 23 7.2%

Very unimportant 16 2.1% 13 4.1%

Total 735 100.0% 320 100.0%


Table 155: Methods of Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



Through payroll deductions 109 14.5% 61 18.8%

By responding to a request that was received by mail* 301 40.0% 158 48.6%

By responding to a telephone request 113 15.0% 64 19.7%

By responding to a TV or radio request 104 13.7% 51 15.7%

By donating on-line* 150 19.9% 98 30.2%

By donating through a religious organization 360 47.7% 158 48.6%

By street collection 255 33.8% 96 29.5%

By donating through a social media such as Facebook/Twitter*† 34 4.5% 2 0.6%

By donating through texting adding to your wireless bill 38 5.1% 14 4.3%

Some other way. 141 18.7% 54 16.6%

Total 754 -- 325 --




Table 156: Sources of Information, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



Television 139 18.4% 60 18.5%

Newspapers 68 9.0% 42 12.9%

Charity's direct mail to you 258 34.2% 106 32.6%

Charity's email to you 44 5.8% 16 4.9%

Charity's own website 88 11.7% 50 15.4%

Internet but not charity's website 131 17.3% 59 18.2%

Other (please specify) 343 45.5% 156 48.0%

Total 754 -- 325 --



Table 157: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas

Sacramento

Region New Wealth

Areas

I can’t afford to give more. 76.3% 78.2%

I would rather spend money in other ways 43.7% 48.9%

I don’t think charities deserve my support 14.1% 13.5%

No one asked me to give. I would, but just don’t seem to get around to it 26.6% 21.1%

I don’t know enough about charities 26.2% 25.2%

I already support too many* 55.7% 64.3%

I give to my church 62.0% 57.4%

I think some charities have high administrative costs 84.7% 86.4%

I’m not sure what they did with my last gift 55.0% 52.2%




Table 158: Previous, Current and Future Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



Did you donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2008?

Donated more 175 25.1% 95 30.3%

Donated less 171 24.6% 67 21.3%

Donated the same 351 50.3% 152 48.4%

Total 697 100.0% 314 100.0%

This year, do you plan to donate more, less or the same as you did in 2009?

Donate more 144 20.8% 54 17.4%

Donate less 152 22.0% 63 20.3%

Donate the same 395 57.2% 193 62.3%

Total 691 100.0% 310 100.0%


Table 159: Trust in Charitable Organizations, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas

Sacramento Region

New Wealth Areas

Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs and services?*

Very good 34.3% 28.8%




Total 100.0% 100.0%


How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?*

Very good 25.9% 26.9%




Total 100.0% 100.0%


For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable organizations?





Total 100.0% 100.0%


In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento region’s charities compare with your trust in national charities?

Trust in Sacramento region’s charities more 43.3% 42.6%

Trust National charities more 9.3% 9.0%


Total 100.0% 100.0%



Strongly Agree 31.4% 32.4%

Agree 61.1% 57.4%

Disagree 5.2% 5.9%

Strongly Disagree 2.3% 4.3%

Total 100.0% 100.0%


Does your general trust in charities influence your charitable giving?*

Yes 81.4% 86.5%

No 18.6% 13.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0%





Total 100.0% 100.0%




Table 160: Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas


Number Percent* Number Percent*


Yes 170 36.1% 33 61.1%

No 301 63.9% 21 38.9%

Total 471 100.0% 54 100.0%


Table 161: Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas



No one personally asked us to give*† 21 4.5% 0 0.0%

We could not afford to give money in 2009* 120 25.5% 11 20.4%

We would rather volunteer than give money† 15 3.2% 3 5.6%

We were being asked to give too frequently† 9 2.0% 1 1.9%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently† 11 2.4% 1 1.9%

We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies† 4 0.9% 1 1.9%

Other† 21 4.4% 5 9.3%

Total 471 -- 54 --



NOTE: This question was asked of respondents who did not donate in 2009 but who had given in the past. Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could choose more than one response.

Table 162: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas†



Financial situation 208 69.4% 14 70.0%

Distrust that donations will be well spent 27 8.8% 1 5.0%

Lack of knowledge about charities 6 2.0% 1 5.0%

Lack of time to research charities 3 0.9% 0 0.0%

Just choose not to give 57 18.9% 4 20.0%

Total 300 100.0% 20 100.0%



Table 163: Mean Percentage of Program Funding, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas


Government Private Charities Government Private Charities

Education programs 73.6 26.3 71.6 27.7

Health and human services* 69.3 30.5 63.4 36.6

Art and cultural programs* 39.0 60.9 35.0 65.2

Environment programs 61.8 38.2 60.8 39.2



Table 164: Planned Giving, Sacramento Region and New Wealth Areas




Yes 483 40.4% 237 64.1%

No 713 59.6% 133 35.9%

Total 1,195 100.0% 370 100.0%

Does your estate plan or will include planned donations to a charity?*

Yes 101 21.8% 35 15.4%

No 363 78.2% 193 84.6%

Total 464 100.0% 228 100.0%



Section 15: Potential Impact of Population Trends

This section explores changes in the demographics of the Sacramento region and the potential impact these changes may have on future charitable giving. The analysis focuses on four demographic characteristics—age, race/ethnicity, education, and household

income—that were found to be related to charitable giving and assesses how changes in

the population could affect future giving in 2015.24

Although it can be a helpful planning tool, it is important to consider the limitations of projections of this nature. The current severe economic downturn is likely to create ripple effects in the areas discussed in this section during the next five years, with the direction of the general unemployment rate, state budget issues, private sector growth, and recovery in the home sales market having impact on this region.

Projected Age Distribution of Sacramento Region

The age distribution of Sacramento region residents is projected to change in the coming years. California Department of Finance projections indicate that the relative proportion of younger residents (those under 65 years of age) will slightly decrease while the proportion of older residents (those 65 years old and older) will increase (Table 165). The percent of the population under the age of 40 (the least likely age range to donate) will decrease by .4 percentage points. However, the 40-64 age range (the most likely to give) is projected to decrease by about 1.7 percentage points to 43 percent of the regional population. This demographic shift will push a larger proportion of the population into the 65 and older age group (which gives at a lower level than the 40-64 age group). Essentially, if all else remains the same, the aging of the Sacramento region could result in a slight decrease in the giving rate. However, the study found that the average donation amount increases with age. Thus, if these patterns continue in the future, the aging of the Sacramento region would have little or no net effect on overall charitable giving.

Table 165: Age Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2009 and 2015

Year Under 40 40-64 65 or older Total

Number 2009* 633,107 727,889 256,157 1,617,153

2015* 688,605 770,443 322,276 1,781,324

Percent 2009* 39.1% 45.0% 15.8% 100.0%

2015* 38.7% 43.3% 18.1% 100.0%

* Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 2000–2050. Sacramento,

CA, July 2007.

24 Gender was excluded from the analysis because there are no significant changes projected for the

gender distribution of Sacramento region residents for the next five years.


Projected Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Sacramento Region

Projections indicate that there will also be changes in the racial and ethnic distribution of the Sacramento region during the next five years. The relative proportion of White residents is projected to decrease, while the relative proportion of Hispanic residents is projected to increase (Table 166). According to the survey results, White residents were the most likely to donate to charitable organizations and Hispanic residents were the least likely to donate. So if all else remains the same, these changes could result in a net effect of decreasing future regional giving. The relative proportion of African American and Asian residents is projected to remain fairly stable, so that this latter demographic should have little regional impact on charitable giving.

Table 166: Race/Ethnicity Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2009 and 2015

Year White Hispanic Black Asian/ Pacific

Islander

American Indian

Multi-racial

Total

Number 2009* 1,014,774 271,012 101,583 176,274 12,500 41,010 1,617,153

2015* 1,072,220 328,123 113,618 201,356 13,527 52,480 1,781,324

Percent 2009* 62.8% 16.8% 6.3% 10.9% 0.8% 2.5% 100.0%

2015* 60.2% 18.4% 6.4% 11.3% 0.8% 2.9% 100.0%

*Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 2000–2050. Sacramento,

CA, July 2007.

Projected Educational Attainment Distribution of Sacramento Region

Trends in the educational attainment of Sacramento region residents may also influence donations to charitable organizations in the next five years. From 2000 to 2009, the proportion of Sacramento residents with a bachelor’s, graduate or professional degree increased, while the proportion of residents with less than high school, high school diploma, or some college decreased. If this trend continues, by 2015, more than 30 percent of Sacramento region residents will have earned a bachelor’s, graduate or professional degree (Table 167). The survey results indicated that as educational attainment increases, so does the likelihood of giving to charitable organizations. Again, if all else remains the same, the increase in residents who earn college degrees could positively affect the level of future of charitable giving.

Table 167: Educational Attainment Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2009 and 2015

Year High School

or Less Some

College Bachelor's

Degree


Degree Total

Number 2009* 469,648 499,427 274,180 134,408 1,377,663

2015** 526,058 544,830 336,413 161,629 1,568,930

Percent 2009* 34.1% 36.3% 19.9% 9.8% 100.0%

2015** 33.5% 34.7% 21.4% 10.3% 100.0%

* Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey ** Educational attainment for 2015 was estimated based on linear regression analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data on educational

attainment from 2000 (Census 2000 Summary File 3) and 2005 through 2009 (American Community Survey one-year estimates).


The compounding impact of the aforementioned projected demographic changes cannot be realistically determined given the level of available data. In addition, age, race, ethnicity and educational attainment were measured at the respondent level, while charitable giving was measured at the household level. The differing units of analysis for these characteristics makes it particularly problematic to go beyond general observations about how future changes in the age, race, ethnicity and educational attainment of the Sacramento region’s population might affect charitable giving. However, broadly speaking, projected changes suggest differential targeting of specific demographic groups relative age, race/ethnicity and education in charitable giving campaigns is prudent.

Projected Household Income Distribution of Sacramento Region

The economic downturn has clearly affected household income in the Sacramento region, especially in 2008 and 2009. While we know that income has a major impact on giving levels,

25 the viability of predictions on how regional changes in income levels will impact

future charitable giving depend on numerous assumptions, as mentioned at the beginning of this section, including how long the recession will last, how income will be affected by these conditions, and when the economic recovery might take hold. Keeping these caveats in mind, it is still worthwhile to estimate future charitable giving based on income forecasts because income is so strongly related to charitable giving.

ESRI forecasts indicate that between 2010 and 2015, the median household income for the Sacramento region will increase by 14 percent (from $60,462 in 2010 to $68,997 in 2015). The percentage of households with incomes of $100,000 or more is projected to increase from 23 percent in 2010 to 30 percent in 2015 (Table 168). Since both giving rates and average donation amounts increase steeply with household income, if all else remains the same, the increase in household income would positively impact the level of future charitable giving. Based on the ESRI forecasted income distribution for 2015, the giving rate for the Sacramento region would increase from 61.6 percent in 2009 to 67.6 percent in 2015, and the average donation amount would increase from $1,511 to $1,666 (a seven percent increase).

26

Table 168: Household Income Distribution for the Sacramento Region, 2010 and 2015

Year Less than $50,000

$50,000-$99,999

$100,000 or more

Total

Number 2010* 324,780 296,136 180,357 801,273

2015* 269,307 329,725 250,096 849,128

Percent 2010* 40.5% 37.0% 22.5% 100.0%

2015* 31.7% 38.8% 29.5% 100.0%

*Source: ESRI 2010 Market Report.

25

The Center on Philanthropy, Giving USA 2010, Giving by Individuals. 26

In Appendix C, see Appendix Table 48 for description of the computation of these estimates.


Section 16: Comparison with Other Geographical Areas

This section compares charitable giving behavior and opinions in the Sacramento Region with findings from published reports describing other geographic areas, including the U.S., Atlanta, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Minnesota, and Boulder County, Colorado. Comparable findings from published reports are included when the questionnaire wording matched exactly. When findings from multiple geographic areas were available, data for cities and/or metropolitan areas—rather than statewide results—were used in order to provide the most

meaningful comparison.

Comparisons with National Giving Rates and Donation Amounts27

Compared to U.S. households in 2006, Sacramento regional households were slightly less likely to donate to charitable organizations (66 % vs. 62% respectively) (Figure 31). In addition, the average donation amount for Sacramento regional households was markedly lower than the national average for 2006 ($1,990 vs. $2,213 respectively). It is very likely that at least some of these differences reflect the economic downturn, rather than disparities between the Sacramento region and the nation as a whole. Household income and charitable giving are strongly related and, as the economy slowed in 2007, so did individual giving.

28 The median household income for the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area

(which coincides with the four-county study region) fell 5.3 percent from 2006 to 200929

.

Figure 31: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006

30

Giving Rates


Sacramento Region 2009 U.S. 2006

27

In order to provide information comparable with U.S. 2006 data, the average donation amounts for the Sacramento region that are described in this section were computed with the outliers included. 28

The Center on Philanthropy, Giving USA 2010, Giving by Individuals. 29

U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey. 30

The data sources for U.S. figures are: 1) The Center on Philanthropy, Overview of Religious Giving, 2010, page 4 (this report states that the 2006 national figures are based on the most recent data available as of December 2009); 2) The Center on Philanthropy, Overview of Overall Giving, 2009, page 5; and 3) The Center on Philanthropy, Overview of Secular Giving, 2010, page 4.

62%

33%

58%

66%

43%

56%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Total

Religious

Secular

$1,990

$1,949

$1,225

$2,213

$2,050

$1,011

$0 $1,000 $2,000

Total

Religious

Secular


The religious giving rate for Sacramento region households during 2009 was significantly lower than the national rate for 2006. One-third of Sacramento households donated to a religious organization, compared to nearly one-half (43%) of all households nationally. However, among donor households, the average amount donated to religious organizations was lower in the Sacramento region than for the U.S. as a whole ($1,949 vs. $2,050, respectively). The secular giving rate for Sacramento regional households during 2009 was slightly higher than the national rate for 2006. Fifty-eight percent of Sacramento regional households donated to a secular organization, compared to 56 percent of all households nationally. However, among donor households, the average amount donated by households in the Sacramento region to secular organizations was slightly higher than that of the U.S. as a whole ($1,225 vs. $1,011, respectively). As noted earlier, it is very likely that at least some of this difference reflects the economic downturn, rather than differences between the Sacramento region and the U.S. as a whole.

Comparisons with National Giving Rates and Donation Amounts for Age, Income, and Educational Attainment

Compared to younger residents from U.S. households in 2006, younger residents in the Sacramento region in 2009 were less likely to donate to charitable organizations (52% vs. 41% respectively) but their average donation amount was slightly higher than the national average for their age group ($1,536 vs. $1,340 respectively) (Figure 32).

Figure 32: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household by Age, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006

31

Giving Rates



31

Data source: The Center on Philanthropy, Overview of Overall Giving, 2010, pages 6-7 (this report states that the 2006 national figures are based on the most recent data available as of January 2011).

41%

74%

71%

52%

70%

76%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Under 40

40-64

65 or older

$1,536

$2,321

$1,900

$1,340

$2,558

$2,395

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000

Under 40

40-64

65 or older


Respondents in the Sacramento region aged 40 to 64 had a slightly higher giving rate than 40 to 64 year olds in U.S. households (74% vs. 70% respectively), however; their mean donation amount was lower than the national average for their age group ($2,321 vs. $2,558 respectively). In 2009, both giving rates and mean donation amounts for Sacramento region residents 65 years of age or older were lower than the national giving rates and donation amounts for U.S. residents in 2006

Sacramento region households with incomes of $100,000 or more were more likely to make charitable donations when compared to U.S. households in the same income bracket (96% vs. 90% respectively). However, the average (mean) donation amount in the Sacramento region for households with incomes of $100,000 or more was $735 less than the national average for this income group ($3,092 vs. $3,827 respectively). In 2009, both giving rates and mean donation amounts for Sacramento region households with incomes below $100,000 were lower than the comparable national averages for 2006 (Figure 33).

Figure 33: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household by Income, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006

32

Giving Rates


Sacramento Region 2009 U.S 2006

Giving rates in 2009 in the Sacramento region were lower across all educational categories than national giving rates for 2006. The differences were greatest for Sacramento region residents with a high school degree or less (46% in the Sacramento region vs. 52% nationally) and for those with a bachelor’s degree (74% in the Sacramento region vs. 82% nationally). Although Sacramento region residents with a high school degree or less were less likely to give than their national counterparts, those who did give made larger donations ($1,880 for the Sacramento region vs. $1,434 for the U.S.). While there was only a two percentage point difference between Sacramento region and U.S. giving rates for those with a graduate or professional degree (85% vs. 87% respectively), there was over a $1,000

32


40%

71%

96%

49%

76%

90%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Less than $50,000

$50,000 to $99,999

$100,000 or more

$774

$1,670

$3,092

$1,237

$1,991

$3,827

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000

Less than $50,000

$50,000 to $99,999

$100,000 or more


difference in their mean donation amounts ($3,175 for the Sacramento region vs. $4,340 for the U.S.) (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Giving Rates and Mean Contribution per Donor Household by Educational Attainment, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006

33

Giving Rates


Sacramento Region 2009 U.S 2006

33


46%

65%

74%

85%

52%

68%

82%

87%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

High schoolor less

Somecollege

Bachelor'sdegree

Graduate degree

$1,880

$1,400

$2,495

$3,175

$1,434

$1,924

$2,743

$4,340

$0 $2,500 $5,000

High schoolor less

Somecollege

Bachelor'sdegree

Graduate degree


Comparisons with National Giving Rates and Donation Amounts by Type of Organization

With the exception of giving to religious organizations, Sacramento region households in 2009 were generally more likely than U.S. households in 2006 to donate to most types of organizations. For five of the ten types of recipient organizations—those serving combined

needs, educational organizations, those serving the needs of youth and family, arts and cultural organizations, and neighborhood and community organizations—Sacramento

region average contribution amounts per donor household were higher than the national average (Figure 35).

Figure 35: Giving Rates and Mean Donation per Donor Household by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S. 2006

34

Giving Rates Mean Contribution per Donor Household

Religious


Basic Needs

Health

Education

Youth and Family

Art and Culture



International


Both giving rates and average donation amounts to educational organizations and those serving the needs of youth and families were higher for the Sacramento region than they were for the U.S.

The giving rate to educational organizations was five percentage points higher in the Sacramento region than the national rate (20% vs. 15% respectively) and the mean donation amount was $155 above the national average ($660 vs. $505 respectively).

34

Data sources for U.S. figures are a series of reports by The Center on Philanthropy: Overview of Religious Giving, Overview of Combined Purpose Giving, Overview of Basic Needs Giving, Overview of Giving to Health, Overview of Educational Giving, Overview of Giving to Youth and Family Services, Overview of Arts and Culture Giving, Overview of Neighborhoods and Community Giving, Overview of Giving to Environmental and Animal Organizations, and Overview of International Giving.

33%

43%

$1,949

$2,050

26%

27%

$865

$537

38%

31%

$344

$486

27%

23%

$263

$289

20%

15%

$660

$505

18%

12%

$339

$212

9%

8%

$393

$283

8%

5%

$269

$191

15%

10%

$196

$254

21%

6%

$254

$272


The Sacramento regions’ giving rate to organizations serving the needs of youth and families was six percentage points higher than the national rate (18% vs. 12% respectively) and the mean donation amount was $127 higher than the national average ($339 vs. $212 respectively).

For three types of organizations (those serving a combination of needs, art and cultural organizations, and neighborhood and community organizations), the giving rate for the Sacramento region was very similar to the national giving rate but the average mean donation amount was markedly higher.

The giving rate was only one percent lower in the Sacramento region for organizations serving a combination of needs (26% vs. 27% respectively); however the mean donation amount was $328 above the national average ($865 vs. $537 respectively).

The Sacramento regions’ giving rate to art and cultural organizations was just one percentage point above the national giving rate (9% vs. 8% respectively), but the average Sacramento region donation amount was $110 higher than the national average ($393 vs. $283 respectively).

The giving rate to neighborhood and community organizations was three percentage points higher in the Sacramento region than the national rate (8% vs. 5% respectively) and the average donation amount for the Sacramento region was $78 more than the national average ($269 vs. $191 respectively).

For four types of organizations (those serving basic needs, health organizations, environmental organizations, and international organizations) giving rates in the Sacramento region were higher than national rates, but the average contribution amount per donor household was lower:

The Sacramento region had a higher giving rate to organizations serving basic needs (38% vs. 31% respectively), but the average (mean) donation amount was slightly lower than the nation as a whole ($344 vs. $486 respectively).

The largest difference was for donations to international organizations. While Sacramento region households in 2009 were significantly more likely than U.S. households in 2006 to donate to international organizations (21% vs. 6% respectively), the average donation amount was only $18 below the national average ($254 vs. $272 respectively)


Taking both giving rates and average donation amounts into account to compute an average contribution amount for all households (as opposed to just donor households), Sacramento region averages were higher than national averages for all but two types of recipient organizations: religious organizations and organizations meeting basic needs (Table 169).

Table 169: Giving Rates, Average Contribution per Donor Household, and Average per Household Contribution, Sacramento Region 2009 and U.S 2006

Giving Rate Average Contribution per Donor Household

Average per Household Contribution (for All Households)

Sacra-

mento

Region 2009

U.S. 2006

Diff- erence

Sacra-

mento

Region 2009

U.S. 2006

Diff- erence

Sacra-

mento

Region 2009

U.S. 2006

Diff- erence

Religious 32.8% 43.0% -10.2% $1,949 $2,050 -$101 $639 $882 -$243

Combined needs 26.4% 26.6% -0.2% $865 $537 $328 $228 $143 $85

Basic needs 37.5% 30.9% 6.6% $344 $486 -$142 $129 $150 -$21

Health 26.6% 23.0% 3.6% $263 $289 -$26 $70 $66 $3

Education 20.2% 14.7% 5.5% $660 $505 $155 $133 $74 $59

Youth and family 18.3% 12.3% 6.0% $339 $212 $127 $62 $26 $36

Art and culture 9.5% 7.8% 1.7% $393 $283 $110 $37 $22 $15

Neighborhood and community

8.3% 5.2% 3.1% $269 $191 $78 $22 $10 $12


14.5% 9.5% 5.0% $196 $254 -$58 $28 $24 $4

International 20.7% 6.3% 14.4% $254 $272 -$18 $53 $17 $36


Comparisons with the Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient in Other Geographic Areas

Sacramento region residents’ donations were distributed across recipient types in much the same way as other geographic areas for which comparison data is available, as well as for the U.S. as a whole. Compared to Atlanta, Indianapolis and U.S. households, Sacramento regional households gave a smaller share of their donations to religious organizations and a larger share to education, art and culture, the environment and international organizations (Figure 36).

Figure 36: Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and U.S. Donor Households

Religious

Education



Youth & Family

International

Basic Needs

Art & Culture

Other Organizations

Health


Sacramento Region 2009

Atlanta 200735

Indianapolis 200636

U.S. 200637

35

Center on Philanthropy, Georgia Gives 2008, page 37. 36

Center on Philanthropy, Indiana Gives 2008, page 37. 37

Center on Philanthropy, Indiana Gives 2008, page 37.

37%

54%

49%

61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

9%

6%

7%

6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

3%

1%

3%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

16%

15%

7%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

5%

4%

2%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

5%

1%

7%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

12%

11%

9%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

4%

2%

3%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

2%

3%

5%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

6%

4%

3%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

2%

1%

3%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%


Alternate Comparison Using Giving USA 2010 Data on Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient

The distribution of donations from the Sacramento region appears to be very similar to the national distribution. Due to the limited comparability of regional and national data, which are discussed in greater detail below, it is not appropriate to focus on minor percentage differences between the two distributions. A more suitable approach is to evaluate the relative rankings of the two distributions, and in this respect, the priorities of the Sacramento region closely mirror national priorities.

Discounting the ―other‖ category (which was constructed solely to provide comparability) religion received the largest share of dollars from the region and the U.S as a whole. Similarly, education received the second-largest share, and health received the third largest share (Figure 37). International organizations received the fourth highest share for the region and the fifth highest share nationally. Organizations promoting the arts and culture received the fifth highest share for the region and the fourth highest share nationally. International organizations received the sixth highest share both for the Sacramento region and the U.S. as a whole.

Figure 37: Distribution of Donations by Type of Recipient for the Sacramento Region and the U.S.

38

Limitations of Giving USA 2010 Data on Estimated Percentage of Gift Dollars by Type of Recipient

Several important methodological differences between the Sacramento regional estimates and the national estimates presented in Giving USA 2010 limit the utility of this comparison. First, the donation sources for the two estimates are not equivalent. The distribution of 38

The Center on Philanthropy, Giving USA 2010, page 6.

37.4%

5.5%

9.0%

3.8%

2.7%

4.7%

36.8%

33.2%

7.4%

13.2%

4.1%

2.0%

2.9%

37.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Religion

Health

Education

Art & culture


International

Other


U.S. 2009


donations in the Sacramento region describes giving from individuals only. In contrast, the national distribution describes donations from individuals, bequests, foundations, and corporations. Contributions from individuals are a large share of all charitable gifts—Giving

USA 2010 found that individual giving comprises 75 percent of total giving—but it is quite

possible that the remaining 25 percent of total giving, which comes from bequests, foundations, and corporations is distributed differently than it is for individuals. The marked differences between the national distribution presented in Giving USA 2010 and the national distribution presented in Indiana Gives 2008 suggest that this is the case (Table 170).

Table 170: Comparison of National Distribution of Donations by Type of Recipient

Giving USA 2010 estimates for

U.S. 2009

Indiana Gives estimates for

U.S. 2006

Religion 33% 61%

Health 7% 4%

Education 13% 6%

Art and culture 4% 2%

Preserve environment 2% 1%

International 3% 1%

Second, the types of information used to produce the estimates are not equivalent. Sacramento regional estimates are based on responses to household surveys using Center on Philanthropy Panel Study (COPPS) measures. National donations for individuals are estimated using IRS data about itemized deductions for charitable contributions claimed on tax returns, and COPPS data is used to estimate giving by households that do not itemize.

Third, the categorization of organization types differs. In order to compare the two distributions, categories that were not equivalent were collapsed into an ―other‖ category. For the Sacramento region, this category includes organizations that: serve a combination of purposes, help people in need of basic necessities; provide youth or family services, improve neighborhoods and communities, and other organizations not included in the COPPS categories. The national ―other‖ category includes: foundations; human services, public-society benefit, foundation grants to individuals, and unallocated giving.


Comparison of Motivations for Giving

Sacramento region residents’ reasons for donating to charities were very similar to residents in other geographic areas. However, they differed somewhat in the relative priorities of these motivations. Four factors were more important for Sacramento region residents than they were for residents in the other geographic areas: tax benefits, being asked to give by an employer, being asked by a friend or associate, and directly helping. The remaining four motivations were slightly less important for Sacramento region residents: reciprocity (the fact that a charity helped them, their friends or family), equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less), the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments can or private businesses, and religious belief (Figure 38).

Figure 38: Motivations for Giving, Sacramento Region , Kansas City, Indianapolis and Atlanta

Sacramento Region 2009 Atlanta 200739

Kansas City 200740

Indianapolis 200641

Tax Benefits

Reciprocity

Employer Asked

Equity

Being Asked to Give by a Friend or Associate

Charities Are More Effective

Directly Helping42

Religious Belief

NOTE: The figure displays the percentage of respondents who selected the factor as either a major or minor motivation.

39

Center on Philanthropy, Georgia Gives 2008, December 2008, page 37. 40

The Center on Philanthropy, Giving in Kansas City, Summer 2009, page 24. 41

Center on Philanthropy, Indiana Gives 2008, Fall 2008, page 37. 42

Comparison data for this measure was not available for Kansas City or Atlanta households.

84%

70%60%

70%76%

88% 88% 83%

65%

43% 43% 46%

83% 93% 92% 95%

83%72% 71% 76% 80%

88% 87% 85%

91%80% 79%

87% 84% 90%


Comparison of Giving Destinations

The destination of giving for Sacramento region residents is generally similar to giving in other geographic areas. Compared to Kansas City and Atlanta, slightly more donation dollars remained in the local area. Fewer of Sacramento region residents’ donation dollars went to national organizations and slightly more went to international organizations (Figure 39).

Figure 39: Giving Destinations for Sacramento Region, Atlanta, Kansas City, and Indiana43

NOTE: For comparative purposes Sacramento data was recalculated to exclude the respondents who said don’t know.

43

The data sources for this figure are: Center on Philanthropy, Georgia Gives 2008, December 2008 and The Center on Philanthropy, Giving in Kansas City, Summer 2009.

70%

57%69%

13%

20%

13%

10% 18%14%

7% 5% 4%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Atlanta 2007

Kansas City 2007

International

National

State

Local


Comparison of Sources of Information about Charities

The only published report which included comparable data on sources of information was a study of Minnesota residents in 2007. The time lapse and differing characteristics of Minnesota and the Sacramento region limit the usefulness of this comparison to a certain extent. Sacramento region residents were more likely than Minnesota residents to get information about a charity from a charity’s direct mail. Disregarding the ―other‖ category, all other information sources were used less frequently by Sacramento region residents (Figure 40).

Figure 40: Sources of Information, Sacramento Region and Minnesota44

44

Charity Review Council, Survey of Minnesotans’ Charitable Giving Habits and Perceptions of Charitable Organizations, July 2007.

34%

18%

17%

12%

9%

6%

46%

29%

24%

26%

14%

29%

8%

19%

0% 25% 50%

Charity's direct mail

Television

Internet

Charity’s website

Newspapers

Charity’s email

Other


Minnesota 2007


Comparison of Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More to Charities

The only study for which comparable data on reasons for not donating more was available describes Boulder residents in 2000.

45 While the large time lapse limits the usefulness of

this comparison, the distributions are remarkably similar. For both Sacramento region and Boulder county residents, high administrative costs were the reason most often cited for not giving more. Not being able to afford larger donations and giving to their church were also very frequent reasons for both groups. Compared to Boulder county residents, Sacramento region residents were markedly less likely to say that not being sure what the charity did with their last gift prevented them from giving more. Sacramento region residents were also less likely than Boulder residents to say that not knowing enough about charities prevented them from giving more (Figure 41).

Figure 41: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More, Sacramento Region and Boulder County

NOTE: This figure shows the percent of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements.

45

National Research Center, Boulder County Philanthropy Survey, 2000, page 10.

76%

73%

59%

54%

51%

42%

25%

25%

14%

81%

80%

55%

65%

71%

45%

40%

26%

12%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


I can't afford to give more.

I give to my church.








Boulder County 2000


Comparisons of Trust in Charitable Organizations

The only study for which comparable data was available on trust in charitable organizations describes Minnesota residents in 2007. The time lapse and differing characteristics of Minnesota and the Sacramento region limit the usefulness of this comparison to a certain extent. Opinions of residents in the two areas were remarkably similar, but Sacramento region residents consistently voiced a slightly greater sense of trust in charities than their counterparts in Minnesota. Compared to Minnesota residents in 2007, Sacramento region residents have slightly more positive perceptions of how well charitable organizations run their programs and services and whether or not they spend their money wisely (Figure 42). They also have more confidence in charitable organizations (Figure 43).

Figure 42: Perceptions of How Good a Job Charities Do, Sacramento Region and Minnesota46

How good of a job do charitable organizations

do in running their programs and services? How good of a job do charitable organizations

do in spending money wisely?

Very good Somewhat good Not too good Not at all good

Figure 43: Confidence in Charitable Organizations, Sacramento Region and Minnesota

46

Charity Review Council, Survey of Minnesotans’ Charitable Giving Habits and Perceptions of Charitable Organizations, July 2007.

34%22%

58%69%

5% 7%

2% 3%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007

26%15%

60%67%

12% 14%

2% 3%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007

25%15%

60%

59%

15%20%

1% 6%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007

No confidence

Not too much confidence

Fair amount of confidence

Great deal of confidence

For you personally,

how much confidence do you have in charitableorganizations?


Compared to Minnesota residents in 2007, Sacramento region residents were more likely to say they trusted their region’s charities more than national charities. They were also slightly more likely to strongly agree that charities in their region are ethical (Figure 44). Sacramento region residents were somewhat less likely to say that their trust in charities influences their charitable giving. They were also slightly more likely to say that trust increases their giving (Figure 45).

Figure 44: Trust in Regional Charities, Sacramento Region and Minnesota

In general, how does your trust in your region's charities compare with your trust in national charities?

For you personally, do you feel that charities in your region are ethical?

Trust national charities more

Trust both the same

Trust region’s charities more

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Figure 45: The Influence of Trust on Charitable Giving, Sacramento Region and Minnesota



Yes No Increase Decrease

43%34%

47%54%

9% 12%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007

31%24%

61%67%

5% 7%

2% 1%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007

81% 86%

19% 14%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007

85% 81%

15% 19%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Sacramento

Region 2009

Minnesota

2007


Comparison of Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving

The only study for which comparable data regarding non-contributing households’ reasons for not giving was available describes U.S. residents in 2001.

47 Even with the considerable

changes that have taken place between 2001 and 2009, the reasons non-contributing households gave for not giving have remained remarkably consistent. It’s difficult to know whether differences that are present reflect changes that have occurred over time or ways that residents of the Sacramento region differ from the U.S. as a whole.

In general, all of the reasons were cited more frequently by Sacramento residents. For both groups, not being able to afford to give was the most frequently given reason. Sacramento residents were more likely than their national counterparts in 2001 to say they could not afford to give, that they would rather volunteer, and that they were being asked to give too frequently (Figure 46).

Figure 46: Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 for Non-Donors Who Had Given in the Past, Sacramento Region and U.S. Households

47

Independent Sector, Giving and Volunteering in the United States, 2001, page 67.

71%

12%

9%

7%

5%

2%

65%

12%

2%

6%

1%

2%

0% 25% 50% 75%

We could not afford to give

No one personally asked us to give

We would rather volunteer

We don’t think the money

will be used efficiently

We were being asked

to give too frequently

We think charities are becoming

too much like for-profit companies


U.S. 2001


Comparison of Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving

The only study for which comparable data on factors that prevented non-donors from giving describes Minnesota residents in 2007. Because this question is only asked of households who had never made any donations to charitable organizations, the Minnesota study describes just 36 respondents (as opposed to 301 Sacramento respondents). The small number of cases can produce less reliable estimates, so extra caution should be used in making these comparisons. For both groups, their financial situation was the most common reason for not donating, but it was even more important for Sacramento region residents. Distrust that donations will be well spent was a less significant factor for Sacramento region residents than it was for Minnesota residents. Sacramento region residents were also less likely to say that lack of knowledge about charities prevented them from giving (Figure 47).

Figure 47: Factors that Prevented Non-Donors from Giving, Sacramento Region and Minnesota

69%

19%

9%

2%

1%

47%

19%

22%

8%

3%

0% 25% 50% 75%

Financial situation

Just choose not to give



Lack of time to research charities


Minnesota 2007


Comparisons of Planned Giving

National estimates indicate that eight percent of the population has a charity named in a will.

48 This is consistent with the percentage of Sacramento region respondents who

reported having a planned donation to charity in their estate plan or will (8.6%). The percent of Kansas City area residents surveyed in 2008 who reported having a charitable bequest in their will was also about eight percent (Table 171).

Table 171: Planned Donations to Charity, Sacramento Region


Do not have an estate plan or will 713 60.6%

Have an estate plan or will that does not include planned donations to charity

363 30.8%

Have an estate plan or will that includes planned donations to charity

101 8.6%

Total 1,177 100.0%

48

The Center on Philanthropy, Giving in Kansas City, Summer 2009.


Appendix A

Survey Instrument

Charitable Giving in the Sacramento Region Survey Prepared by the Institute for Social Research at California State University, Sacramento FINAL Introduction: Hello my name is __________ and I am a student calling from California State University, Sacramento. We are collecting information about Sacramento region residents charitable giving on behalf of a collaboration of businesses, foundations, and non-profits. Your household was chosen at random to be a part of this study. It is very important that we include your opinions in this study, regardless of how you feel about charities or whether or not you currently make any donations. We are not asking for any donations, only your opinions. The questions are easy to answer and should only take about 15 minutes depending on your responses. Your participation is voluntary, all your answers are confidential, and you may refuse to answer any questions at any time. May we begin? Q: Screener Are you an adult 18 or older who is the primary or joint decision maker in your household for giving to charitable causes? 1 YES (ENTER 1 TO CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW) 2 NO (Could I please speak with that person?) 1 YES (REPEAT INTRODUCTION WHEN THEY COME TO THE PHONE) 2 NO (SCHEDULE A CALLBACK, BE SURE TO ASK FOR A GOOD TIME TO CALLBACK) (Geographic Location) Q:REGION For the purposes of this study, the Sacramento region includes El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties. Do you live in one of these counties? 1 YES 2 NO [SKIP TO NOTQAL] Q:REGION1 In which county do you currently live? 1 EL DORADO 2 PLACER (SKIP TO Q3B)


3 SACRAMENTO (SKIP TO Q3C) 4 YOLO (SKIP TO Q3D) 5 NONE 6 DON'T KNOW 7 REFUSED IF (ANS > 4) SKIP TO NOTQAL Q: CITYELDO In which city do you live? 1 PLACERVILLE 2 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 3 EL DORADO HILLS 3 OTHER PLACES IN EL DORADO COUNTY 4 DON'T KNOW 5 REFUSED (SKP TO ZIP) Q:CITYPLAC In which city do you live? 1 AUBURN 2 COLFAX 3 GRANITE BAY 4 LINCOLN 5 LINCOLN HILLS 6 LOOMIS 7 ROCKLIN 8 ROSEVILLE 9 SUN CITY 10OTHER PLACES IN PLACER COUNTY 11 DON'T KNOW 12 REFUSED (SKP TO ZIP) Q:CITYSACR In which city do you live? 1 CITRUS HEIGHTS 2 ELK GROVE 3 FOLSOM 4 GALT 5 ISLETON 6 SACRAMENTO 7 RANCHO CORDOVA 8 OTHER PLACES IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY 9 DON'T KNOW


10 REFUSED (SKP TO ZIP) Q:CITYYOLO In which city do you live? 1 DAVIS 2 WEST SACRAMENTO 3 WINTERS 4 WOODLAND 5 OTHER PLACES IN YOLO COUNTY 6 DON'T KNOW 7 REFUSED Q:ZIP Our records indicate that you live in the ##### zip code. Is that correct? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS < 2 SKIP TO T1) Q: ZIP2 In which zip code do you live? ##### NEED INCOME AND AGE HERE FOR OVER SAMPLING QUOTA PURPOSES T1: Transition 1 To begin we will talk about money and donations to charitable organizations. Charitable organizations include religious or non-profit organizations that help those in need or that serve and support public interests. They range in size from national organizations like the American Cancer Society and the American Red Cross down to local community organizations such as, Loaves and Fishes or the Crocker Art Museum. They serve a variety of purposes such as religious activity, helping people in need, health care and medical research, education, arts, environment, and international aid. Our definition of charity does not include political contributions. Donations include any gifts of money, assets, or property made directly to the organization, through payroll deduction, or collected by other means on behalf of the charity. Donations do not include time spent volunteering. This interview is limited to donations made during the calendar year 2009. (COPPS questions from Indiana Gives 2008, Giving USA, Kansas Gives)


Q1. During the year 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) donate money, assets, or property/goods, with a combined value of more than $25 to religious or charitable organizations? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS >1) SKPQ21 T2: Transition 2 I am going to read you examples of the many different areas in which households donate money. By donating, I mean making a voluntary contribution with no intention of making a profit. For each area, please tell me whether you or the members in your household gave some money in 2009? Q2. Did you make any donations specifically for religious purposes or spiritual development, for example to a church, synagogue, mosque, TV or radio ministry? Please do not include donations to schools, hospitals, and other charities run by religious organizations. I will be asking you about those donations next. 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q3) Q2a. Altogether, what was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards religious purposes? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q3) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q2b. Was it $300 or more?

1 Yes

2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q2e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q3) Q2c. Was it $1,000 or more? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED


IF (ANS >1) SKIP TO Q3 Q2d. Was it $2,500 or more? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSE SKIP TO Q3 Q2e. Was it $100 or more? 1YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q3. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) during 2009 did you (or anyone in your family) donate to any organization that served a combination of purposes? For example, the United Way, the United Jewish Appeal, the Catholic Charities, or you local community foundation? 1 YES 2 NO IF (ANS >1) SKIP TO Q4 Q3a. (Altogether,) what was the total dollar value of all donations (you and your family) made in 2009 towards combined purpose funds? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q4) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q3b. Was it $200 or more? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q3e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q4 Q3c. Was it $500 or more? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS >1) SKIP TO Q4 Q3d. Was it $1,000 or more? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW


4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q4 Q3e. Was it $100 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q4. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) did you (or anyone else in your family) make any donations (during 2009) to organizations that help people in need of food, shelter, or other basic necessities? 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q5) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT BASIC NECESSITIES: HOMELESS SHELTER, FOOD BANKS, LOW INCOME & SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, FOOD/SOUP KITCHENS Q4a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 to organizations that help people in need of basic necessities? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q5) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q4b. Was it $200 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q4e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q5 Q4c. Was it $500 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS >1) SKIP TO Q5 Q4d. Was it $1,000 or more?

1 YES 2 NO


3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q5 Q4e. Was it $100 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q5. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) did you (or anyone else in your family) make donations (during 2009) to health care or medical research organizations? For example, to hospitals, mental health programs, cancer research, heart and lung associations, or telethons? 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q6) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT HEALTH CARE OR MEDICAL RESEARCH: FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS, BLOOD BANKS, COUNSELING, CRISIS INTERVENTION Q5a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards health care or medical research? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q6) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q5b. Was it $200 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q6 Q5d. Was it $1,000 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q6 Q5e. Was it $100 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q6. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) did you (or anyone else in your family) make donations (during 2009) towards educational purposes? For example, to colleges, grade schools, PTAs, libraries, or scholarship funds? Please do not include direct tuition payments for you or other family members. 1 YES 2 NO(SKIP TO Q7) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES: LITERARCY PROGRAMS, REMEDIAL READING PROGARMS, ALUMNI ASSOCIATIONS, SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS Q6a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards educational purposes? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q7) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q6b. Was it $200 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED


SKIP TO Q7 Q6d. Was it $1,000 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q7. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) during 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) make donations to organizations that provide youth or family services? Such as to scouting, boys’ and girls’, sports leagues, Big Brothers Big Sisters, foster care, or family counseling? 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q8) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: JOB SERVICES, YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, YOUTH CENTERS FAMILY VIOLENCE SHELTERS Q7a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you made in 2009 towards youth and family services purposes? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q8) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q7b. Was it $200 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW


4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q8 Q7d. Was it $1,000 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q8. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) during 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) make donations to organizations that support or promote the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness? Such as, to a museum, theatre, orchestra, public broadcasting, or ethnic cultural awareness? When answering please do not include the purchase of tickets or cost of admission to performances or events in your response 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q9) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT ARTS, CULTURE, OR ETHNIC AWARENESS: COMMUNITY CELEBRATIONS, PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS, HISTORICAL SOCIETIES Q8a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards the arts, culture, or ethnic awareness? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q9) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q8b. Was it $200 or more?





1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q9. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) during 2009, did you (or anyone else in your family) make donations to organizations that improve neighborhoods and communities? Such as, to community associations or service clubs? 1 YES 2 NO(SKIP TO Q10) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS: ROTARY CLUBS, KIWANIS CLUB, CHAMBERS OF COMMERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS Q9a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards improving neighborhoods and communities? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q10) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q9b. Was it $200 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q9e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q10


Q9c. Was it $500 or more?



1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q10. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) during 2009, did you (or anyone else in your family) make donations to organizations that preserve the environment? Such as, for conservation efforts, animal protection, or parks? 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q11) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT: ANIMAL SHELTERS, RECYCLING PROGRAMS, WATER, FOREST, OR ENERGY CONSERVATION Q10a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards preserving the environment? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q11) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q10b. Was it $200 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q10e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q11 Q10c. Was it $1,000 or more?


1 YES

2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q11 Q10d. Was it $1,000 or more?


1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q11. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) during 2009, did you (or anyone in your family) make donations to organizations that provide international aid or promote world peace? Such as, international children’s funds, disaster relief, or human rights? 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q12) INTERVIEWER: PLEASE USE THESE PROMPTS OF EXAMPLES IF RESPONDENT IS UNCLEAR ABOUT INTERNATIONAL AID: INTERNATIONAL RELIEF (HAITI), UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATIONS (UNICEF), INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS, INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE AND LITERACY Q11a. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards providing international aid or promoting world peace? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q12) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q11b. Was it $200 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q11e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q12


Q11c. Was it $500 or more?



1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q12. (Not counting the donations you just told me about,) did you (or anyone else in your family) make donations of money to charitable organizations with purposes other than those we just talked about? 1 YES 2 NO (SKIP TO Q13) Q12a. What was the main purpose or cause supported by that organization? (AO) Please tell me a little more about that. What do these organizations do? (Veterans’ organizations, employment services, crime and legal related associations, food, agricultural, and nutrition associations, recreation and sports associations, civil rights and social action associations ) Q12b. What was the total dollar value of all donations you (and your family) made in 2009 towards (this/these) last purpose(s)? $ ###,### (SKIP TO Q13) 1 DON’T KNOW 2 REFUSED Q12c. Was it $200 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED


IF (ANS= 2) SKIP TO Q12e IF (ANS> 2) SKIP TO Q13 Q12d. Was it $500 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q13 Q12e. Was it $1,000 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED SKIP TO Q13 Q12f. Was it $100 or more?

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED MOTIVATIONS FOR GIVING Q13. (From Indiana Gives 2008) T3: Transition 3 Now I would like to ask you about your motivations for giving to a non-profit/charitable organization. I will read you some reasons people give for donating to charities. Please tell me if the reason is a major or minor motivation for your giving in 2009. How much of a motivation is: Q13a.Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13b. Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13c. Being asked to give by a celebrity?


1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13d. Giving back (giving back to society) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13e. Tax benefits 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13f. Employer asked 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13g. For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13h. Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13i. Religious belief 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED


Q13j. Family tradition (donating to same causes your parents or other family members did) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED Q13k. Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family) 1 MAJOR MOTIVATION 2 MINOR MOTIVATION 3 NEITHER 4 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED WHERE THEY GIVE Q14. (From Boulder County Philanthropy Survey) Thinking about your charitable donations in 2009, what percentage of your total charitable donations went to organizations: In the Sacramento Region _____ Outside the Sacramento Region, but in California _____ Outside California, but in the US _____ Outside the U.S. _____ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED _____ 100% Q14a. How important is it to you to donate to local charitable organizations? 1 Very Important 2 Somewhat important 3 Somewhat unimportant 4 Very unimportant 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED METHOD OF GIVING Q15. (From Giving and Volunteering in the US 2001) I am going to read ways that people make their donations. Please tell me during 2009, did you or anyone in your household make a donation…. (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1 Through payroll deductions? 2 By responding to a request that was received by mail? 3 By responding to a telephone request? 4 By responding to a TV or radio request? 5 By donating on-line? 6 By donating through a religious organization? 7 By street collection?

8 By donating through social media such as Facebook/Twitter


9 By donating through texting adding to your wireless bill 10 Some other way? (PLEASE SPECIFY) SOURCE OF INFORMATION Q16. (From Charities Review Council Survey of Minnesotans’) Where do you get information about charities before donating? Is it television, radio, newspapers, a charity’s direct mail to you, a charity’s e-mail to you, a charity’s own website, Internet, but not charity’s website, or other? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1 TELEVISION 2 NEWSPAPERS 3 CHARITY’S DIRECT MAIL TO YOU 4 CHARITY’S EMAIL TO YOU 5 CHARITY’S OWN WEBSITE 6 INTERNET BUT NOT CHARITY’S WEBSITE 7 OTHER (please specify)

8 DON’T KNOW 9 REFUSED PREVENTS FROM GIVING MORE T4: Transition 4 (From 2000 Boulder Report 2001) I am going to read some reasons that people give for not donating more to charity. For each of these reasons, please tell me if you agree or disagree that this reason might be a reason you wouldn’t donate to charity. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements as a reason why you do not contribute more to charity? Q17a. I can’t afford to give more. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17b. I would rather spend money in other ways 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17c. I don’t think charities deserve my support 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE


3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17d. No one asked me to give. I would, but just don’t seem to get around to it. 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17e. I don’t know enough about charities 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17f. I already support too many 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17g. I give to my church 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q17h. I think some charities have high administrative costs 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED


Q17i. I’m not sure what they did with my last gift 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 SOMEWHAT AGREE 3 SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED ECOMONIC IMPACT TO GIVING Q18. Did you donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2008? 1 DONATED MORE 2 DONATED LESS 3 DONATED THE SAME 4 DON’T KNOW

5 REFUSED Q18a. This year do you plan to donate more, less, or the same as you did in 2009? 1 DONATE MORE 2 DONATE LESS 3 DONATE THE SAME 4 DON’T KNOW 5 REFUSED TRUST (From Charities Review Council Survey of Minnesotans’) Q19. Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs and services? Would you say they do a very good job, somewhat good, not too good, or not at all good job at running their programs and services?

1 VERY GOOD 2 SOMEWHAT GOOD 3 NOT TOO GOOD 4 NOT AT ALL GOOD 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED

Q19a. How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely? Would you say they do a very good job, somewhat good, not too good, or not at all good job at spending money wisely?

1 VERY GOOD 2 SOMEWHAT GOOD 3 NOT TOO GOOD 4 NOT AT ALL GOOD


5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED

Q19b. For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable organizations? Do you have a great deal of confidence, a fair amount of confidence, not too much confidence, or no confidence? 1 GREAT DEAL OF CONFIDENCE 2 FAIR AMOUNT OF CONFIDENCE 3 NOT TOO MUCH CONFIDENCE 4 NO CONFIDENCE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q19c. In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento regions’ charities compare with your trust in national charities? Would you say you trust the Sacramento regions’ charities more, do you trust national charities more, or would you say you trust the Sacramento regions’ and national charities about the same? 1 TRUST IN SACRAMENTO REGIONS’ CHARITIES MORE 2 TRUST NATIONAL CHARITIES MORE 3 TRUST BOTH THE SAME 4 DON’T KNOW 5 REFUSED Q19d. For you personally, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree that charities in the Sacramento region are ethical? 1 STRONGLY AGREE 2 AGREE 3 DISAGREE 4 STRONGLY DISAGREE 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q19e. Does your general trust in charities influence your charitable giving? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED Q19f. Does it (trust) increase or decrease your giving? 1 INCREASE 2 DECREASE 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED


SKIP TO q24a

FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT GIVE IN 2009 Q20. Have you ever donated to a non-profit or charitable organization? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS > 1) SKP Q23 Q21. (From Giving and Volunteering in the US 2001) What was the reason you did not give to a non-profit or charitable organization in 2009? 1 No one personally asked us to give 2 We could not afford to give money in 2009 3 We would rather volunteer than give money 4 We were being asked to give too frequently 5 We don’t think the money will be used efficiently 6 We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies 7 Other 8 DON’T KNOW 9 REFUSED Q22. (From Charities Review Council Survey of Minnesotans’ ) What prevents you from giving? Is it your:

1 Financial situation 2 Distrust that donations will be well spent 3 Lack of knowledge about charities 4 Lack of time to research charities 5 Just choose not to give 6 DON’T KNOW 7 REFUSED

(FUNDING SOCIAL PROGRAMS) T4: Now we would like to get your opinions on the role of charities versus the government in improving the welfare of others and providing vital programs and services. Q23. What percentage of educational programs should be funded by local, state or federal governments versus private charities?

GOVERNMENT ______ PRIVATE CHARITIES ______ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED ______ 100%


Q23a. What percentage of health and human services should be funded by local, state or federal governments versus private charities? GOVERNMENT ______ PRIVATE CHARITIES ______ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED ______ 100% Q23b. What percentage of arts and culture programs should be funded by local, state or federal governments versus private charities? GOVERNMENT ______ PRIVATE CHARITIES ______ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED ______ 100% Q23c. What percentage of environmental programs should be funded by local, state or federal governments versus private charities? GOVERNMENT ______ PRIVATE CHARITIES ______ DON’T KNOW/REFUSED ______ 100% (PLANNED GIVING) Q24.

Do you, a spouse, or partner, have an estate plan or will? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED IF (ANS >1) SKP Q26 Q24a. Does your estate plan or will include planned donations to a charity? 1 YES 2 NO 3 DON’T KNOW 4 REFUSED

Demographics T5: In order to ensure that our sample accurately reflects our population, we need to ask a few personal questions. Remember everything you tell me is confidential, and you may decline to answer any question. Q: PHONLINE


Are we conducting this interview on a landline or a cell phone? 1 LANDLINE 2 CELL PHONE 3 REFUSED Q: Gender Are you male or female? 1 MALE 2 FEMALE 3 REFUSED Q: Age In what year were you born? ##### Q: Education What is the highest year of school you have completed? 1 Less than high school (Grade 11 or less) 2 High school diploma or GED 3 Some college 4 Bachelor’s degrees 5 Graduate or professional degree 6 DON’T KNOW 7 REFUSED Q: Income. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income for 2009, before taxes—Less than $20,000, $20,000 but less than $30,000, $30,000 but less than $50,000, $50,000 but less than $75,000, $75,000 but less than $100,000, $100,000 but less than $150,000, $150,000 but less than $200,000 or $200,000 or more? 1 LESS THAN$20,000 2 $20,000 BUT LESS THAN $30,000 3 $30,000 BUT LESS THAN $50,000 4 $50,000 BUT LESS THAN $75,000 5 $75,000 BUT LESS THAN $100,000 6 $100,000 BUT LESS THAN $150,000 7 $150,000 BUT LESS THAN $200,000 8 $200,000 OR MORE 9 DON’T KNOW 10 REFUSED Q: Residency How many years have you lived in the Sacramento region? ###### Q: Race 1 Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?


1 Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano 2 Yes, Puerto Rican 3 Yes, Cuban 4 No, not Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin 5 DON’T KNOW 6 REFUSED Q: Race2 What race do you consider yourself to be: INTERVIEWER: (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) 1 White 2 Black/African American 3 American Indian or Alaska Native 4 Asian Indian 5 Chinese 6 Japanese 7 Filipino 8 Korean 9 Vietnamese 10 Some other Asian (please specify) 11 Native Hawaiian 12 Samoan 13 Guamanian or Chamorro 14 Some other Pacific Islander (please specify) 15 Other race (please specify) 16 DON’T KNOW 17 REFUSED Where were you born? 1 In the United States 2 Outside the United States (Please specify which country) 3 REFUSED Q: Employment Status What is your current employment status? 1 Full-time 2 Part-time 3 Not Employed 4 Retired 5 Disabled 6 DON’T KNOW 7 REFUSED Q: Religious Attendance How often do you attend religious services? 1 Once a week


2 Almost every week 3 About once a month 4 Seldom 5 Never 6 DON’T KNOW 7 REFUSED Q: Religious Preference What is your religious preference? 1 Protestant 2 Catholic 3 Mormon/Latter Day Saint 4 Quaker 5 Jehovah’s Witness 6 Mennonite 7 Nondenominational Christian 8 Jewish 9 Muslim/Islamic 10 Other 11 No religious preference 12 DON’T KNOW 13 REFUSED Q: ENDSCRIPT Those are all the questions I have for you. Thank you for your time and participation in this important study. Have a nice day/ evening. Q:NOTQAL I am sorry you are not eligible for this study. We are only interviewing people who live in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo counties. Thank you for your time. Have a nice day/evening.


Appendix B This appendix includes the following tables:

Weighted Participation in Giving (Appendix Table 1)

Weighted Donations to Types of Organizations (Appendix Table 2)

Weighted Mean, Median, and Stand Deviation of Amounts Donated to Types of Organizations, Sacramento Region 2009 (Appendix Table 3)

Weighted Motivations for Giving (Appendix Table 4)

Weighted Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts (Appendix Table 5)

Weighted Importance of Donating Locally (Appendix Table 6)

Weighted Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations (Appendix Table 7)

Weighted Source of Information about Charitable Organizations (Appendix Table 8)

Weighted Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More (Appendix Table 9)

Weighted Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving (Appendix Table 10)

Weighted Trust in Charitable Organizations (Appendix Table 11)

Weighted Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009 (Appendix Table 12)

Weighted Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009 (Appendix Table 13)

Weighted Factors that Prevent Non-Donors from Giving (Appendix Table 14)

Weighted Estate Plan or Will and Planned Giving (Appendix Table 15)

Weighted Funding Social Programs (Appendix Table 16)

Weighted Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region (Appendix Table 17)

Weighted Frequencies for all Survey Questions

Appendix Table 1: Weighted Participation in Giving

Number Percent

Yes 754 61.6%

No 469 38.4%

Total 1,224 100.0%


Appendix Table 2: Weighted Donations to Types of Organizations

Types of Organizations N %

Religious Yes 401 58.8%

No 344 46.2%

Total 745 100.0%

Combination of needs Yes 323 44.0%

No 412 56.0%

Total 735 100.0%

Basic needs Yes 459 62.9%

No 270 37.1%

Total 729 100.0%

Health Yes 325 43.5%

No 422 56.5%

Total 747 100.0%

Education Yes 247 33.3%

No 494 66.7%

Total 740 100.0%

Youth & family Yes 224 30.1%

No 520 69.9%

Total 744 100.0%

Art & culture Yes 116 15.6%

No 630 84.4%

Total 154 100.0%

Neighborhood &community Yes 101 13.6%

No 638 86.4%

Total 738 100.0%

Preserve environment Yes 178 24.5%

No 550 75.5%

Total 729 100.0%

International Yes 253 34.0%

No 492 66.0%

Total 152 100.0%

Other organizations Yes 47 6.2%

No 707 93.8%

Total 754 100.0%


Appendix Table 3: Weighted Mean, Median, and Stand Deviation of Amounts Donated to Types of Organizations, Sacramento Region 2009



Secular organizations 560 $1,009 $480 $1,.888 $2 $16,100

Religious 252 $1,338 $500 $1,821 $5 $10,000

Combination of needs 240 $606 $200 $1,285 $5 $8,000

Basic needs 312 $344 $200 $630 $10 $6,000

Health 225 $221 $100 $498 $5 $5,000

Education 178 $455 $200 $685 $5 $5,000

Youth & family 158 $261 $100 $703 $5 $10,000

Art & culture 88 $393 $100 $885 $5 $3,800

Neighborhood & community 69 $269 $100 $649 $10 $4,000

Preserve environment 126 $196 $76 $621 $2 $6,000

International 167 $254 $100 $621 $10 $5,000

Other Organizations 35 $563 $200 $731 $20 $2,500


Appendix Table 4: Weighted Motivations for Giving

Major Motivation

Minor Motivation Neither Total

Percent* Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)

66.7% 24.0% 9.3% 100.0%


31.0% 52.3% 16.7% 100.0%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 2.9% 57.0% 40.1% 100.0% Giving back (giving back to society) 69.1% 23.2% 7.7% 100.0% Tax benefits 31.3% 52.9% 15.8% 100.0% Employer asked 10.0% 55.1% 34.8% 100.0% For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)

47.2% 36.1% 16.7% 100.0%


43.5% 36.7% 19.7% 100.0%

Religious belief 50.7% 34.2% 15.0% 100.0% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)

34.4% 44.1% 21.5% 100.0%


35.9% 39.8% 24.3% 100.0%

Number Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)

480 172 67 720


230 388 124 741

Being asked to give by a celebrity 22 423 298 742 Giving back (giving back to society) 497 167 55 720 Tax benefits 228 286 115 729 Employer asked 73 403 254 731 For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)

350 267 123 740


315 266 143 723

Religious belief 377 255 122 744 Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did)

257 329 161 747


265 294 180 739

*Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Appendix Table 5: Weighted Means and Standard Deviations of Destination of Charitable Gifts

Mean Standard Deviation Number

In the Sacramento Region 62.8 40.8 754

Outside the Sacramento Region, but in California 11.2 24.1 754

Outside California, but in the US 8.9 21.9 754

Outside the US 6.6 18.5 754

Don’t Know /Refused 10.3 30.4 754


Appendix Table 6: Weighted Importance of Donating Locally

Number Percent*

Very Important 391 53.2%

Somewhat Important 281 38.1%

Somewhat Unimportant 48 6.5%

Very Unimportant 16 2.1%

Total 735 100.0% * Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Appendix Table 7: Weighted Method of Giving to Charitable Organizations

Number Percent*

Through payroll deductions 109 14.5%

By responding to a request that was received by mail 301 39.9%

By responding to a telephone request 113 15.0%

By responding to a TV or radio request 104 13.8%

By donating on-line 150 19.9%

By donating through a religious organization 360 47.8%

By street collection 255 33.8%

By donating through a social media such as Facebook/Twitter 34 4.5%

By donating through texting adding to your wireless bill 38 5.0%

Some other way 141 18.7%

Total 1,605 ____---- *Percent sums to more than 100 because respondents could choose more than one answer.

Appendix Table 8: Weighted Source of Information about Charitable Organizations

Number Percent*

Television 139 18.4%

Newspapers 68 9.0%

Charity's direct mail to you 258 34.2%

Charity’s email to you 44 5.8%

Charity’s own website 88 11.7%

Internet but not charity's website 131 17.4%

Other 343 45.5%

Total 864 -- * Percent sums to more than 100 because respondents could choose more than one answer.


Appendix Table 9: Weighted Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More

Agree Disagree

N % N %

I can't afford to give more. 548 72.7% 171 22.7%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 314 41.6% 405 53.7%

I don't think charities deserve my support. 102 13.5% 620 82.2%

No one asked me to give. 188 24.9% 520 69.0%

I don't know enough about charities. 190 25.2% 535 71.0%

I already support too many. 404 53.6% 322 42.7%

I give to my church. 447 59.3% 274 36.3%


573 76.0% 104 13.8%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift. 381 50.5% 311 41.2%

Total 3,147 -- 3,262 --

Appendix Table 10: Weighted Comparisons of Previous, Current and Future Giving

Number Percent

Did you donate more, less, or the

same as you did in 2008?

Donated more 175 25.1%

Donated less 171 24.5%

Donated the same 351 50.4%

Total 697 100.0%

This year do you plan to donate

more, less or the same as you did in 2009?*

Donate more 144 20.8%

Donate less 152 22.0%

Donate the same 395 57.2%

Total 691 100.0%


Appendix Table 11: Weighted Trust in Charitable Organizations

Number of Cases Percent

Generally speaking, how good of a job would you say charitable organizations do in running their programs and services?

Very good 213 28.5%

Somewhat good 361 48.3%

Not too good 34 4.6%

Not at all good 14 1.9%

Don’t know 125 16.7%

Total 748 100.0%

How good of a job do charitable organizations do in spending money wisely?

Very good 143 19.2%

Somewhat good 334 44.9%

Not too good 66 8.9%

Not at all good 10 1.3%


Total 744 100.0%

For you personally, how much confidence do you have in charitable organizations?

Great deal of confidence 175 23.3%

Fair amount of confidence 426 56.8%

Not too much confidence 104 13.9%

No confidence 8 1.0%


Total 750 100.0%

In general, how does your trust in the Sacramento regions charities compare with your trust in national charities?

Trust Sacramento region’s charities more 272 37.0%

Trust national charities more 59 8.0%

Trust both the same 299 40.6%


Total 735 100.0%


Strongly agree 186 24.8%

Agree 361 48.2%

Disagree 30 4.1%

Strongly disagree 14 1.8%


Total 749 100.0%


Yes 556 75.2%

No 127 17.2%


Total 740 100.0%


Increase 477 64.8%

Decrease 87 11.9%


Total 736 100.0%

* p < .05 Note: respondents who declined to answer the question were excluded from analysis. However, since there were a substantial

number of ―don’t know‖ responses, they were included as a separate category.

Appendix Table 12: Weighted Previous Donations for Respondents Who Did Not Donate in 2009

Number Percent

Yes 170 36.1%

No 301 63.9%

Total 471 100.0%


Appendix Table 13: Weighted Non-Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving in 2009

Number Percent*

No one personally asked us to give 21 12.4%

We could not afford to give money in 2009 120 70.6%

We would rather volunteer than give money 15 8.8%

We were being asked to give too frequently 9 5.3%

We don’t think the money will be used efficiently 11 6.5%

We think charities are becoming too much like for-profit companies 4 2.4%

Other 21 12.4%

Total 170 --

Appendix Table 14: Weighted Factors that Prevent Non-Donors from Giving

Number Percent*

Financial Situation 208 69.1%

Distrust that donations will be well spent 27 9.0%

Lack of knowledge about charities 6 2.0%

Lack of time to research charities 3 1.0%

Just Choose not to give 57 18.9%

Total 301 100.0%

Appendix Table 15: Weighted Estate Plan or Will and Planned Giving


Do you, a spouse or partner have an estate plan or will?

Yes 483 40.4%

No 713 59.6%

Total 1,195 100.0%


Yes 101 21.8%

No 363 78.2%

Total 464 100.0%


Appendix Table 16: Weighted Funding Social Programs

Mean SD Number of cases

Educational Programs Government 73.6 29.2 981

Private Charities

26.4 29.0 891


Government 69.3 30.0 1,008

Private Charities

30.7 29.9 1,005


Government 39.0 29.8 984

Private Charities

61.0 29.9 984

Environmental Programs Government 61.8 29.4 992

Private Charities

38.2 29.4 992


Weighted Frequencies for Demographic Characteristics

Appendix Table 17: Weighted Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region

Sacramento Region

Number Percent

Respondent Age (Sacramento region mean age = 47 )

18-24 89 7.2%

25-34 183 14.9%

35-44 287 23.3%

45-54 186 15.1%

55-59 102 8.3%

60-64 93 7.6%

65-74 years old 101 8.2%

75-84 56 4.5%

Over 85 21 1.7%

Don't know / Refused 115 9.3%

Total 1,233 100.0%

Respondent Gender

Male 427 34.7%

Female 804 65.3%

Total 1,231 100.0%

Respondent Race/Ethnicity

White 712 60.8%

Black/African American 83 7.0%

Hispanic 178 15.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 7 0.6%

Asian 138 11.8%

Pacific Islander 8 0.7%

Other race 5 0.4%

Multiracial 40 3.4%

Total 1,171 100.0%

Household Income

Less than $20,000 131 10.6%

$20,000 but less than $30,000 70 5.7%

$30,000 but less than $50,000 163 13.2%

$50,000 but less than $75,000 145 11.8%

$75,000 but less than $100,000 121 9.8%

$100,000 but less than $150,000 129 10.5%

$150,000 but less than $200,000 49 4.0%

$200,000 or more 22 1.8%


Total 1,233 100.0%

Respondent Education

Less than high school 96 7.8%

High school diploma or GED 329 26.7%

Some college 444 36.0%

Bachelor’s degrees 232 18.8%

Graduate or professional degrees 110 8.9%


Total 1,233 100.0%


Appendix Table 17 (continued): Weighted Demographic Characteristics, Sacramento Region

Sacramento Region

Number Percent

Respondent Years of Residence in the Sacramento region

(mean for Sacramento Region = 48 years )

Less than 5 years 158 12.8%

6 to 10 years 187 15.2%

11 to 15 years 147 11.9%

16 to 20 years 163 13.2%

21 to 25 years 113 9.2%

26 to 30 years 101 8.2%

31 to 40 years 148 12.0%

41 to 50 years 85 6.9%

More than 50 years 98 7.9%


Total 1,233 100.0%

Respondent Employment Status

Full-time 550 45.9%

Part-time 145 12.1%

Not employed 229 19.1%

Retired 219 18.3%

Disabled 55 4.6%

Total 1,198 100.0%

Religious Attendance

Once a week 390 32.4%

Almost every week 99 8.2%

About once a month 135 11.2%

Seldom 262 21.7%

Never 318 26.4%

Total 1,203 100.0%

Religious Preference

Protestant 253 22.5%

Catholic 333 29.6%

Mormon/Latter Day Saint 21 1.8%

Quaker 1 0.1%

Jehovah’s Witness 13 1.2%

Nondenominational Christian 181 16.1%

Jewish 8 0.7%

Muslim/Islamic 15 1.4%

Other 65 5.8%

No Religious Preference 237 21.0%

Total 1,127 100.0%


Appendix C This appendix includes the following tables:

Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated to Types of Organizations, Sacramento Region 2009 (Appendix Table 18)

Average Contribution per Donor Household by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region (Including and Excluding Outliers) and U.S. 2006 (Appendix Table 19)

Other Types of Organizations for Main Sample (Responses to Other Categories

Appendix Table 20)

Other Types of Organizations for All Three Oversamples (Appendix Table 21)

All Other Responses to Method of Giving for Main Sample (Appendix Table 22)

All Other Responses to Method of Giving for All Three Oversamples (Appendix Table 23)

Other Responses to Sources of Information for Main Sample (Appendix Table 24)

Other Responses to Sources of Information for All Three Oversamples (Appendix Table 25)

Other Responses to Donors’ Reason for Not Donating More for Main Sample (Appendix Table 26)

Other Responses to Donors’ Reason for Not Donating More for All Three Oversamples (Appendix Table 27)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Age (Motivations for Giving

Appendix Table 28)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Household Income (Appendix Table 29)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment (Appendix Table 30)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity (Appendix Table 31)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Gender (Appendix Table 32)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Employment Status (Appendix Table 33)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Religious Preference (Appendix Table 34)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations for Age Oversample (Appendix Table 35)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations for Income Oversample (Appendix Table 36)

Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations for New Wealth Oversample (Appendix Table 37)


Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Age (Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving More in 2009

Appendix Table 38)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Income (Appendix Table 39)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Educational Attainment (Appendix Table 40)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Race/Ethnicity (Appendix Table 41)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Employment Status (Appendix Table 42)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Religious Preference (Appendix Table 43)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More for Age Oversample (Appendix Table 44)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More for Income Oversample (Appendix Table 45)

Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More for New Wealth Oversample (Appendix Table 46)

Mean Dollar Amounts by Type of Organizations (with Outliers)

Appendix Table 18: Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Amounts Donated to Types of Organizations, Sacramento Region 2009 (with Outliers Included)



Secular organizations 560 $1,225 $480 $5,179 $2 $16,610

Religious 259 $1,949 $500 $4,283 $5 $35,000

Combination of Needs 240 $865 $200 $6,248 $5 $150,000

Basic Needs 312 $344 $200 $630 $10 $6,000

Health 226 $263 $100 $1,108 $5 $25,000

Education 179 $660 $200 $2,928 $5 $40,000

Youth and Family 158 $339 $100 $1,919 $5 $40,466

Art and Culture 88 $393 $100 $885 $5 $3,800

Neighborhood & Community 69 $269 $100 $649 $10 $4,000

Preserve Environment 126 $196 $76 $621 $2 $6,000

International 167 $254 $100 $621 $10 $5,000

Other Organizations 35 $563 $200 $731 $20 $2,500


Appendix Table 19: Average Contribution per Donor Household by Type of Recipient, Sacramento Region (Including and Excluding Outliers) and U.S. 2006

U.S. 2006


All donations With outliers

excluded

Decrease resulting from

exclusion of outliers

All organizations $2,213 $1,990 $1,511 -$479

Secular organization $1,011 $1,225 $1,009 -$216

Religious $2,050 $1,949 $1,338 -$611

Combined needs $537 $865 $606 -$259

Basic needs $486 $344 $344 $0

Health $289 $263 $221 -$42

Education $505 $660 $455 -$205

Youth &family $212 $339 $261 -$79

Art &culture $238 $393 $393 $0

Neighborhood &community $191 $269 $269 $0

Preserve environment $254 $196 $196 $0

International $272 $254 $254 $0


Responses to Other Categories

Appendix Table 20: Other Types of Organizations for Main Sample

Number of Cases

Civil liberties 2

Correctional peace officers foundation 1

Firefighters 7

Foreign War 1

Haiti relief 1

Help police families 1

Indian reservations 1

Legal support for the poor 1

Military 1

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers 1

Non abortion 1

NRA 1

On the road giving 1

People get lost in the wilderness 1

Police 3

Sacramento Life Center 1

Search and rescue 1

Social security 1

Special Olympics 3

Telethon - 20 dollars 1

Twelve step programs 3

United Farm workers--union 1

US Olympic Committee 1

Veterans 19

Total 47


Appendix Table 21: Other Types of Organizations for All Three Oversamples

Age oversample Income

oversample New Wealth

American Legion 2

Civil Liberties 1

Firefighters 1 8

Future farmers 1

Historical places 1

Libraries

2

Men's organizations 1

Missionaries oversees

1

Police 2 3 6

Research

1

Support Gay Rights

1

Veterans 6 4 5

Zoo

1

Total 14 7 26

Appendix Table 22: All Other Responses to Method of Giving for Main Sample

Number of Cases

Cash/check 24

Credit card 1

Direct donation 50

Fundraising event 13

Family and friends asked 10

Personal contact 11

School 2

Word of mouth 4

Work, not payroll deduction 3

Account deduction 1

Directly helping those in need, giving out clothes/toys 1

Goodwill 1

Money order- personal account with organization 1

Personal Knowledge 1

Print media 1

Property through Salvation Army, adding to bill 1

Transporting goods to a drop off site 1

Total 126


Appendix Table 23: All Other Responses to Method of Giving for All Three Oversamples

Age oversample Income oversample New Wealth

Cash/check 6 8 10

Credit card

1 1

Direct donation 4 4 15

Fundraising event 1 2 3

Family and friends asked

3 2

Personal contact 5 18 4

School

3

Word of mouth

3

Work, not payroll deduction

1

Grocery store

2

Newspaper 1 2

Personal Knowledge 1 2

Private Invitation 1

SMUD 1

Total 19 42 43


Appendix Table 24: Other Responses to Sources of Information for Main Sample

Number of Cases

Church 78

Family 32

Friends 52

Local community 10

Magazines 2

Personal contact 24

Personal experience 13

Personal knowledge 24

Phone 14

Prior donations 6

Radio 11

School 3

Word of mouth 56

Work 41

All sorts of sources 1

Billboards 1

By choice 1

Charity navigator 1

Donate where it’s needed 1

Field (environmentalist) 1

Fliers 2

Fraternity 1

General information 1

Information booths 1

Just donate to homeless 1

Kids in neighborhood 1

Membership to organizations 1

Multimedia 2

Organizations 1

Personal Research 1

Presentations 1

Reputation 1

Reviews of charities 1

Social Clubs 1

Store 1

Supporting people they know of 1

Went to organization 1

Total 391


Appendix Table 25: Other Responses to Sources of Information for All Three Oversamples


Church 2 1 35

Family 10 15 11

Friends 4 13 20

Local community 1 1 4

Magazines 1

1

Personal contact 8 9 12

Personal experience 2 2 6

Personal knowledge 10 13 22

Phone 2 5 6

Prior donations 3

Radio 1 2 3

School 3 9 7

Word of mouth

4 29

Work 3 11

AAUW group talked about it

1

Alumni 1

Boarders Book store

1

Business associations 1 1 1

Cut backs

1

Door to door 1

Library

1

Look for charities that help children 1

Organizations I believe in

1

Personal Beliefs 1

Personal Research 3 1

Places in society 1

Public

1

Republican Party 1

Request information

1

Salvation Army 1

Social Awareness

1

Social Media 1

Store (pet)

1

Went to organization 2

Total 48 84 185


Appendix Table 26: Other Responses to Donor’s Reason for Not Donating More for Main Sample

Number of Cases

Bad Economy 1

Bankruptcy 1

Because haven’t been moved to give 1

Didn't come up 1

Didn't know of any charities to donate to 3

Didn't take part 1

Haven't organized things to give away 1

Helping daughter w/ financial needs 1

In debt 1

Missed deadline 1

Really busy 3

Student 4

Total 19

Appendix Table 27: Other Responses to Donor’s Reason for Not Donating More for All Three Oversamples


Didn't think about it 1

Kids in school

1

Only give to church

1

When you donate the recipients will get 1 percent of your money and their not well run

1

Work for charity

1

Total 1 1 3


Motivations for Giving

Appendix Table 28: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Age

Under 40 years old

40 to 64 years old


Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) * 96.3% 90.4% 82.5% Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)* 85.0% 87.7% 76.9%

Being asked to give by a celebrity* 64.9% 62.3% 51.2%

Giving back (giving back to society)* 86.7% 95.3% 88.0%

Tax benefits 88.9% 84.1% 78.8%

Employer asked* 60.0% 72.4% 47.9% For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less) 78.9% 83.7% 85.2% Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can) 73.4% 82.3% 81.0%

Religious belief 84.0% 85.0% 82.9% Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did) 79.6% 77.4% 76.2% Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family) 75.0% 76.4% 67.2%

Number of cases 136- 153 402-413 117-123


Appendix Table 29: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Household Income

Under $50,000

$50,000 but Less Than $100,000

$100,000 or More

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs)

86.5% 94.1% 90.1%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 84.5% 88.2% 81.2%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 65.0% 63.0% 65.4%

Giving back (giving back to society) 88.9% 95.8% 93.7%

Tax benefits* 79.5% 88.6% 90.1%

Employer asked 59.7% 68.3% 70.7%


83.2% 86.2% 81.2%


78.3% 79.8% 86.2%

Religious belief 81.0% 85.8% 88.0%


76.1% 75.5% 81.7%


73.9% 81.0% 74.2%

Number of cases 126-142 185-190 188-191



Appendix Table 30: Major and Minor Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Educational Attainment

High School or Less


Degree


Degree


84.7% 90.0% 96.4% 92.3%


79.9% 84.1% 83.4% 88.0%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 58.2% 59.0% 64.5% 59.1%

Giving back (giving back to society) 88.4% 94.0% 93.3% 93.5%

Tax benefits* 79.9% 84.8% 90.3% 79.6%

Employer asked 64.4% 66.4% 67.7% 61.3%


88.3% 81.9% 81.7% 84.8%


78.7% 82.3% 83.7% 74.7%



73.5% 76.2% 87.6% 77.4%


75.1% 72.9% 84.0% 72.0%

Number of cases 173-190 270-283 163-171 91-93


Appendix Table 31: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/African

American Hispanic



92.2% 82.1% 92.0% 79.4%


82.4% 82.1% 85.3% 90.3%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 58.6% 67.5% 65.3% 54.2%


Tax benefits* 86.1% 76.9% 86.5% 71.4%

Employer asked 63.3% 70.0% 77.0% 66.2%


82.1% 87.2% 93.3% 85.9%


80.4% 92.5% 87.7% 72.0%

Religious belief* 81.4% 100.0% 81.3% 96.1%


73.5% 94.9% 78.7% 96.1%


69.1% 94.7% 88.4% 85.5%

Number of cases 470-487 38-40 69-75 63-77



Appendix Table 32: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Gender

Male Female


87.4% 92.0%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate) 81.5% 84.1%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 59.4% 60.2%

Giving back (giving back to society) 92.1% 92.4%

Tax benefits 85.8% 83.4%

Employer asked* 58.2% 68.5%


81.9% 83.9%


83.7% 78.6%

Religious belief* 81.2% 86.7%


76.4% 79.4%


72.5% 77.1%



Appendix Table 33: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Employment Status



93.3% 80.6% 96.2% 87.7%


85.4% 77.8% 80.2% 82.3%



Tax benefits* 89.3% 71.2% 85.7% 76.8%

Employer asked* 70.3% 61.6% 74.0% 50.0%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less)*

86.4% 68.1% 81.0% 87.6%


83.5% 58.9% 83.8% 81.9%



79.4% 72.6% 77.8% 78.8%


74.2% 73.6% 82.7% 73.0%

Number of cases 371-389 63-73 74-81 154-161



Appendix Table 34: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations by Religious Preference


Christian Other



91.5% 94.5% 97.5% 95.8% 85.0%


82.6% 84.1% 87.3% 76.5% 82.4%

Being asked to give by a celebrity 66.1% 60.1% 62.5% 55.6% 56.9%

Giving back (giving back to society) 93.9% 89.7% 90.8% 98.6% 92.8%

Tax benefits 84.7% 87.4% 85.1% 80.6% 84.0%

Employer asked 57.3% 68.4% 68.6% 62.5% 66.2%


86.3% 79.7% 84.3% 76.1% 83.8%


85.3% 79.0% 85.0% 81.4% 78.3%

Religious belief* 91.7% 89.1% 90.1% 90.3% 68.2%


81.4% 82.0% 78.3% 77.8% 70.5%


78.1% 78.7% 77.7% 65.3% 68.5%

Number of cases 163-169 164-184 113-121 68-72 125-131


Appendix Table 35: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations for Age Oversample



Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) * 92.6% 87.2%

Being asked (being asked to give by a friend or associate)* 87.1% 78.8%

Being asked to give by a celebrity* 63.0% 52.7%

Giving back (giving back to society)* 93.1% 87.8%

Tax benefits* 84.9% 77.5%

Employer asked* 67.9% 44.7%

For equity (feeling that those who have more should help those with less) 84.0% 82.4%


80.4% 79.8%

Religious belief 83.6% 80.5%


78.2% 74.1%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family)* 75.6% 65.4%




Appendix Table 36: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations for Income Oversample

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) 91.1% 93.2%





Employer asked 61.2% 66.1%


Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can) 79.1% 83.6%


Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did) 76.3% 78.8%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family) 76.6% 72.5%



Appendix Table 37: Motivations for Giving to Charitable Organizations for New Wealth Oversample

Sacramento Region

New Wealth Areas

Directly helping (helping individuals meet their material needs) 90.7% 93.0%





Employer asked 65.2% 63.2%


Charities are more effective (the belief that charities can provide public services more effectively than governments or private businesses can) 80.3% 84.9%


Family tradition (donating to the same causes your parents or other family members did) 78.5% 78.9%

Reciprocity (the fact a charity helped you, your friends or family) 75.7% 74.2%




Donors’ Reasons for Not Giving More in 2009

Appendix Table 38: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Age


Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I can't afford to give more.* 34.9% 28.8% 24.7% 11.6% 49.1% 32.3% 12.0% 6.5% 45.4% 26.1% 16.8% 11.8%

I would rather spend money in other ways.*

9.0% 29.2% 47.9% 13.9% 18.3% 34.8% 24.3% 22.8% 7.6% 17.6% 32.8% 42.0%


4.7% 7.3% 29.3% 58.7% 5.5% 10.1% 25.4% 59.0% 1.7% 9.4% 24.8% 64.1%

No one asked me to give.* 2.7% 18.2% 41.9% 37.2% 9.8% 19.2% 21.0% 50.0% 4.2% 19.3% 22.7% 53.8%

I don't know enough about charities.*

10.2% 12.9% 42.9% 34.0% 7.9% 19.6% 23.8% 48.6% 5.1% 21.2% 22.0% 51.7%

I already support too many.* 15.4% 29.5% 36.9% 18.1% 22.8% 38.5% 19.0% 19.8% 31.9% 28.6% 20.2% 19.3%

I give to my church. 34.7% 24.0% 13.3% 28.0% 37.4% 25.5% 11.1% 26.0% 34.2% 26.7% 15.8% 23.3%


43.6% 30.1% 13.5% 12.8% 50.4% 34.7% 8.0% 6.9% 64.0% 27.0% 1.8% 7.2%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift.*

19.6% 27.5% 29.0% 23.9% 31.1% 26.0% 22.1% 20.8% 26.1% 27.9% 12.6% 33.3%

Number of cases 132-151 385-403 111-121 NOTE: Don’t know and refused were excluded from this table. Table data does not add up to 100 percent.


Appendix Table 39: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Income

Under $50,000 $50,000 but less than $100,000 $100,000 or more

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I can't afford to give more.* 53.6% 27.9% 15.0% 3.6% 43.2% 36.1% 10.4% 10.4% 35.2% 33.0% 21.4% 10.4%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 13.8% 30.4% 34.8% 21.0% 19.0% 30.7% 26.3% 24.0% 13.3% 27.1% 29.3% 30.3%

I don't think charities deserve my support.* 2.2% 12.4% 27.7% 57.7% 11.4% 7.0% 22.7% 58.9% 1.6% 7.7% 25.1% 65.6%

No one asked me to give.* 2.3% 27.8% 29.3% 40.6% 10.8% 22.7% 24.3% 42.2% 10.2% 13.1% 20.5% 56.3%

I don't know enough about charities. 8.5% 19.9% 30.5% 41.1% 11.8% 18.2% 25.7% 44.4% 6.4% 14.4% 29.8% 49.5%

I already support too many.* 19.4% 23.9% 35.1% 21.6% 24.6% 40.6% 16.6% 18.2% 20.0% 34.2% 23.2% 22.6%

I give to my church.* 32.6% 24.6% 18.1% 24.6% 45.1% 21.7% 7.6% 25.5% 40.9% 22.1% 8.8% 28.2%

I think some charities have high administrative costs. 52.3% 34.9% 6.4% 6.4% 56.8% 24.0% 7.1% 12.0% 47.0% 35.9% 8.3% 8.8%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift. 32.5% 33.3% 17.5% 16.7% 33.9% 21.9% 18.6% 25.7% 27.8% 24.4% 23.9% 23.9%

Number of cases 110-140 178-186 177-188

NOTE: Don’t know and refused were excluded from this table. Table data does not add up to 100 percent.


Appendix Table 40: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Educational Attainment

High school or less Some College Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I can't afford to give more.*

54.0% 23.3% 12.2% 10.6% 49.8% 27.0% 17.6% 5.6% 37.7% 37.7% 15.4% 9.3% 35.6% 38.9% 12.2% 13.3%


12.0% 33.2% 33.2% 21.7% 13.0% 28.9% 28.9% 29.3% 18.8% 26.1% 36.4% 18.8% 12.4% 30.3% 30.3% 27.0%


7.7% 7.7% 28.2% 56.4% 5.1% 6.9% 23.7% 64.2% 3.6% 13.2% 27.5% 55.7% 1.1% 8.8% 24.2% 65.9%


10.2% 23.2% 26.0% 40.7% 7.9% 15.0% 25.1% 52.1% 6.1% 20.1% 29.9% 43.9% 4.4% 15.6% 28.9% 51.1%


16.1% 22.6% 21.5% 39.8% 5.1% 13.6% 26.5% 54.8% 6.6% 19.8% 36.5% 37.1% 2.3% 19.3% 27.3% 51.1%


21.7% 38.9% 23.3% 16.1% 22.3% 28.8% 22.7% 26.3% 23.0% 32.7% 29.1% 15.2% 20.9% 36.3% 24.2% 18.7%

I give to my church.* 32.8% 34.9% 12.9% 19.4% 39.1% 19.9% 12.9% 28.0% 41.4% 17.9% 14.2% 26.5% 39.6% 23.1% 9.9% 27.5%


42.4% 43.0% 5.5% 9.1% 58.0% 27.8% 5.1% 9.0% 53.4% 31.1% 12.4% 3.1% 47.7% 32.6% 9.3% 10.5%


34.3% 27.7% 21.3% 19.7% 28.5% 25.4% 17.2% 28.9% 23.0% 30.4% 27.3% 19.3% 26.1% 26.1% 25.0% 22.7%

Number of cases 165-189 255-277 161-167 85.92



Appendix Table 41: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Race/Ethnicity

White Black/ African American Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree


44.7% 33.1% 12.2% 9.9% 56.4% 23.1% 20.5% 0.0% 54.9% 29.6% 7.0% 8.5% 34.7% 27.8% 33.3% 4.2%


13.0% 34.1% 27.2% 25.7% 0.0% 35.9% 48.7% 15.4% 12.0% 17.3% 32.0% 38.7% 24.0% 20.0% 52.0% 4.0%

I don't think charities deserve my support.*

3.0% 10.1% 23.1% 63.8% 0.0% 0.0% 34.2% 65.8% 11.0% 2.7% 20.5% 65.8% 14.3% 14.3% 50.6% 20.8%

No one asked me to give.*

7.3% 19.0% 27.0% 46.7% 5.0% 12.5% 27.5% 55.0% 6.8% 20.5% 19.2% 53.4% 16.0% 22.7% 42.7% 18.7%


6.0% 19.3% 24.9% 49.8% 28.2% 15.4% 28.2% 28.2% 12.3% 15.1% 19.2% 53.4% 6.4% 20.5% 48.7% 24.4%

I already support too many.*

21.0% 39.0% 21.6% 18.4% 23.1% 5.1% 53.8% 17.9% 13.5% 20.3% 29.7% 36.5% 20.8% 37.7% 26.0% 15.6%

I give to my church.* 33.2% 26.5% 13.4% 26.9% 68.4% 13.2% 13.2% 5.3% 36.5% 28.4% 10.8% 24.3% 56.0% 24.0% 14.7% 5.3%


52.7% 32.4% 8.7% 6.2% 36.4% 36.4% 15.2% 12.1% 47.6% 34.9% 4.8% 12.7% 62.7% 25.4% 4.5% 7.5%

I am not sure what they did with my last gift.*

24.5% 26.7% 22.9% 25.8% 32.5% 12.5% 20.0% 35.0% 43.7% 21.1% 16.9% 18.3% 36.0% 29.3% 21.3% 13.3%

Number of cases 445-472 32-40 63-74 68-76



Appendix Table 42: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Employment Status


Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree


44.0% 32.6% 16.3% 7.1% 31.0% 33.8% 26.8% 8.5% 64.6% 29.1% 6.3% 0.0% 49.0% 24.8% 12.7% 13.4%


14.4% 31.4% 30.9% 23.4% 18.3% 25.4% 38.0% 18.3% 11.8% 34.2% 36.8% 17.1% 12.7% 24.8% 29.3% 33.1%


4.5% 9.4% 25.9% 60.2% 12.5% 4.2% 36.1% 47.2% 3.8% 9.0% 29.5% 57.7% 1.3% 12.3% 22.6% 63.9%


8.6% 20.2% 26.9% 44.3% 12.5% 11.1% 31.9% 44.4% 5.2% 15.6% 36.4% 42.9% 5.1% 19.0% 22.8% 53.2%


6.9% 18.2% 26.4% 48.5% 8.3% 18.1% 38.9% 34.7% 8.1% 14.9% 35.1% 41.9% 5.1% 20.9% 25.9% 48.1%


17.8% 34.0% 28.7% 19.4% 33.3% 40.3% 15.3% 11.1% 15.2% 25.3% 27.8% 31.6% 28.0% 35.0% 18.5% 18.5%

I give to my church. 36.9% 25.3% 11.1% 26.7% 43.1% 22.2% 8.3% 26.4% 36.7% 30.4% 12.7% 20.3% 35.9% 20.5% 20.5% 23.1%


51.8% 31.9% 9.0% 7.4% 39.7% 44.1% 8.8% 7.4% 48.3% 37.9% 12.1% 1.7% 60.9% 28.5% 2.6% 7.9%


27.8% 25.6% 25.6% 21.0% 26.9% 37.3% 16.4% 19.4% 40.6% 27.5% 14.5% 17.4% 28.0% 24.7% 20.7% 26.7%

Number of cases 360-376 67-72 58-80 149-159



Appendix Table 43: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More by Religious Preference


Protestant Catholic Other Christian Other Religion No Religious Preference

Strongly

agree Somewhat

agree Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree


50.0% 29.6% 11.7% 8.6% 51.2% 26.5% 15.3% 7.1% 38.3% 38.3% 15.0% 8.3% 23.5% 41.2% 13.2% 22.1% 52.8% 23.6% 17.3% 6.3%


12.5% 27.4% 34.5% 25.6% 13.9% 26.0% 28.9% 31.2% 15.0% 35.0% 26.7% 23.3% 24.2% 18.2% 33.3% 24.2% 13.9% 38.5% 30.3% 17.2%


3.7% 9.9% 16.7% 69.8% 6.3% 9.2% 28.2% 56.3% 5.0% 7.4% 32.2% 55.4% 19.4% 4.5% 17.9% 58.2% 0.8% 11.0% 26.8% 61.4%

No one asked me to give.*

8.4% 25.9% 19.3% 46.4% 6.9% 20.0% 24.0% 49.1% 11.7% 11.7% 32.4% 44.1% 17.9% 9.0% 20.9% 52.2% 1.7% 18.3% 32.5% 47.5%


13.9% 24.7% 18.1% 43.4% 6.8% 14.2% 31.3% 47.7% 4.2% 19.3% 29.4% 47.1% 11.3% 5.6% 18.3% 64.8% 2.4% 22.2% 31.7% 43.7%


24.4% 35.1% 16.7% 23.8% 26.1% 28.9% 24.4% 20.6% 10.3% 39.7% 32.8% 17.2% 23.9% 29.6% 19.7% 26.8% 16.4% 33.6% 28.7% 21.3%

I give to my church.*

53.3% 24.0% 6.0% 16.8% 46.6% 21.0% 18.8% 13.6% 34.5% 33.6% 9.7% 22.1% 49.3% 23.2% 5.8% 21.7% 11.2% 12.0% 22.4% 54.4%


67.5% 24.8% 5.7% 1.9% 50.0% 34.4% 7.5% 8.1% 37.2% 40.7% 12.4% 9.7% 54.9% 21.1% 5.6% 18.3% 49.2% 31.7% 9.2% 10.0%


24.5% 27.6% 19.0% 28.8% 37.6% 24.2% 20.0% 18.2% 28.2% 28.2% 26.4% 17.3% 26.8% 23.9% 22.5% 26.8% 24.0% 28.1% 27.3% 20.7%

Number of cases 157-168 160-178 111-120 66-71 120-127


Appendix Table 44: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More for Age Oversample

Under 65 years old


Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I can’t afford to give more.

43.8% 31.5% 14.8% 9.9% 42.7% 29.3% 15.0% 13.0%


14.9% 33.6% 30.2% 21.3% 10.2% 19.7% 33.2% 36.9%

I don’t think charities deserve my support.

4.8% 9.6% 25.3% 60.3% 3.4% 10.9% 25.2% 60.5%

No one asked me to give. I would, but just don't seem to get around to it.

7.2% 18.3% 27.6% 46.9% 5.3% 17.2% 25.4% 52.0%

I don’t know enough about charities.

7.7% 18.6% 28.8% 44.9% 7.8% 22.5% 23.0% 46.7%


21.0% 36.2% 24.1% 18.7% 32.1% 31.3% 17.7% 18.9%

I give to my church. 34.7% 24.1% 12.1% 29.1% 35.6% 26.3% 12.1% 25.9%


50.1% 33.7% 8.5% 7.7% 66.7% 26.6% 3.0% 3.8%

I’m not sure what they did with my last gift.*

27.7% 26.0% 23.9% 22.4% 30.7% 22.5% 16.5% 30.3%



Appendix Table 45: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More for Income Oversample

Under $100,000

$100,000 or more

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I can’t afford to give more.* 48.2% 32.2% 11.9% 7.7% 35.0% 31.9% 18.8% 14.4%


15.3% 29.2% 30.8% 24.7% 14.1% 28.5% 29.1% 28.2%

I don’t think charities deserve my support.*

6.8% 9.4% 25.6% 58.2% 2.2% 9.7% 23.4% 64.8%

No one asked me to give. I would, but just don't seem to get around to it.*

6.5% 22.8% 27.2% 43.5% 7.3% 14.0% 25.2% 53.5%

I don’t know enough about charities.

10.3% 18.7% 27.7% 43.3% 5.5% 18.2% 28.3% 48.0%

I already support too many. 23.6% 33.2% 23.1% 20.0% 21.3% 35.9% 22.5% 20.4%



59.1% 26.5% 6.1% 8.4% 50.6% 35.4% 7.0% 7.0%

I’m not sure what they did with my last gift.

33.9% 24.5% 18.5% 23.1% 26.4% 24.4% 23.8% 25.4%

Number of cases 358-391 311-328 NOTE: Don’t know and refused were excluded from this table. Table data does not add up to 100 percent.


Appendix Table 46: Donors’ Reasons for Not Donating More for New Wealth Oversample

Sacramento Region New Wealth Oversample

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I can’t afford to give more.* 46.2% 30.1% 14.9% 8.8% 48.5% 23.9% 12.1% 5.5%

I would rather spend money in other ways. 14.3% 29.5% 30.8% 24.7% 12.9% 35.9% 28.2% 23.0%

I don’t think charities deserve my support.* 5.2% 8.9% 25.6% 60.3% 5.2% 8.4% 27.7% 58.7%

No one asked me to give. I would, but just don't seem to get around to it.* 7.9% 18.7% 26.7% 46.8% 7.3% 13.9% 31.7% 47.2%

I don’t know enough about charities. 7.9% 18.3% 27.7% 46.1% 8.1% 17.1% 27.4% 47.4%

I already support too many. 22.2% 33.5% 24.2% 20.1% 25.0% 39.3% 20.5% 15.3%


I think some charities have high administrative costs. 51.9% 32.8% 7.6% 7.8% 59.5% 26.9% 8.4% 5.2%

I’m not sure what they did with my last gift. 28.3% 26.8% 21.5% 23.4% 25.2% 26.9% 25.9% 21.9%

Number of cases 677-726 380 NOTE: Don’t know and refused were excluded from this table. Table data does not add up to 100 percent.

final report for the 2010 survey on charitable giving in ... report for... · final report for the...

Documents