The 'generousity index' is hooey.

The generousity index provides a perfect example of why I so often argue mathematical points on this board even if the theory being propounded is pleasing to me.

This is the index which purports to show that New Englanders are tightfisted while Southerners are generous. Here is the problem.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_us_notes.php

The above links to the technical notes behind the index.

First lets look at the definition. The generousity index is the difference between where a state ranks in terms of income vs where it ranks in terms of the average dollar amount given by people who itemize their returns. According to the websites own text only 30% of people itemize and those tend to be the richest 30%. Thus the richest people in the South are being compared to the richest people in New England (or are they?). Actually the itemizers in New England are being compared to the itemizers in the South. As anyone familar with the tax structures of those two regions can attest it is way more likely that the typical middle class person can itemize in places like MA and CT than in places like MS and AK. Thus the average amount given by an itemizer is likely to be higher in those states.

The other major problem is that they rank the states instead of looking at a percent of income actually being given to charity. Thus MS is ranked 50th in income and can't have a negative number for this index no matter how little they give. Conversely MA can't rise above a positive 3 no matter how much it gives. It is literally true that if MA gave all of its income to charity while MS gave none they would be ranked almost the same on this list. Replace MS with the top ranked state in terms of money and those states would be ranked exactly the same even with MS giving $0 and the richest state giving all of its income to charity.

Evidently the point behind this ranking was to shame MA residents into giving more money to charity. But they used voodoo math, plain and simple. Voodoo math is bad, no matter how noble the theory it may be trying to uphold.

On edit I have no idea which region actually gives more to charity. I honestly don't care which region gives more to charity. My point here is that this statistic is plain voodoo. To rank states by income and then compare that rank to the average $ given to charity by people who itemize is plain voodoo. A much more meaningful comparison would be the amount respected national charities raise in each region.

Mea culpa. I owe you on that one, dsc. "Big time".

apology accepted.

And the "contributions" like club dues. All those dollars allegedly going to charity are really going to build expensive buildings.

Since the non itemizers are filtered out we are only discussing people with fairly high disposable incomes. Probably both give at fairly similar rates.

Most charity (about 80%) goes to religious organizations, and most of that money never leaves the denomination. It's no more charity than joining a country club that does a moderate amount of philanthropy.

This is one tidbit that bares the hollow nature of the myth...

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v15/i14/14000601.htm

"Southerners have the lowest donation rate to secular nonprofit organizations in the country, giving slightly more than 1 percent of their available funds."

Also, one thing you need to keep in mind is that Catholic churches are much more low-budget affairs, averaging $5 per active parishoner per week vs. $15-20 for protestants. This money gets spent within the church.

gives to this statistic it is quite likely that the amount of charitable giving, even as a percent of income of those doing the giving, is about the same in the regions. Thus the church argument may well be irrelevent. It might be relevent too, I really don't know.

We're talking about churches that spend tens of millons on their physical plant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5420437#5420513

here is a key piece showing how much BS the list of states is:
>>>
Geography and Generosity includes an analysis of the Generosity Index--which is based on income tax returns--and determined that it is inaccurate in part because of a built-in bias against high-income states, such as Massachusetts, and for low-income states such as Mississippi, which has frequently come out as the most generous state in the nation on the Index. When Schervish and his team used the same formula that was used by Dr. George McCully, publisher of the Catalogue for Philanthropy and the creator of the Generosity Index, they determined that even if Massachusetts residents had given 100 or 1,000 times the amount of money that was in fact donated to charity in 2004, and held giving by all other states constant, Massachusetts could not rise above number 23 on the Index. At the same time, the calculation suggested that the state of Mississippi would not fall below 26th place out of 50 even if residents of that state had given zero to charity in 2004.
<<<<

It seems to me it would be possible for them to be in first place with a positive 3 if everyone were to get a zero score (have equal rankings on both lists with one exception of a negative 3 to balance out)

Can't we stop fighting the North vs. South fight? :shrug: Aren't we progressives?

sorry but you so missed my point

I think you missed mine.

whole damn thing over again.

I am so sorry I asked people to read on a discussion board. Silly me.

but one person on this thread so far. What does that say to you?

it is pretty sad but clearly true.

The generousity index provides a perfect example of why I so often argue mathematical points on this board even if the theory being propounded is pleasing to me.

Maybe the word example is unclear. Maybe the word mathematical is. Or maybe, just maybe, you people are just lazy readers.

You start a post about the generosity index when barely an hour ago there was a huge flame fest on the same thing that turned into a reenactment of the civil war. Maybe you should read.

Example means something used to illustrate a larger point. Or at least that is what it meant the last time I looked in a dictionary. The larger point being illustrated, as I explained was misuse of math. Sorry if that was too hard to get.

give and how generous they are would be to compare donations based on things such as what percent people donate from their take home pay, not just amounts and include all organizations considered charitable and also not just count contributions that are itemized on tax deductions. This "study" is so way off its ridiculous. Nobody that does not itemize (like me) is taken into account. Nor, as I understand are any of the animal rescue groups that I donated to.

counted (assuming that the giver itemized)

animal charities had not been included. But there were different articles linked so I am not really sure of what is counted or not, just that this study concluded that New England is stingy.

It may well be the case which would be yet another flaw but I saw no evidence of that.

But then again, maybe the OP didn't see the earlier hoopla. This compass point war gets us nowhere.

but I guess that is just too much to ask.

As I mentioned, we went 100+ posts earlier on the subject, it's just not in me anymore :)

In the south, there is more emphasis on social class.

One moves up by getting involved in charities. One gets to hang out with the other beautiful people at fundraisers. All tax deductible.

This stat doesn't begin to tell us.

I grew up in upstate NY. Albany area. Now I'm in Nashville.

One of the first things I noticed upon moving was that the newspapers devote space to published lists of 'needs' for all the charities around town. Not for cash, but used or new office equipment, supplies, etc.

It also became apparent really fast that the church communities were just as much - more perhaps - about social networking than religion.

The perception I had of charity parties in the Northeast was that they were for the uber-rich. Here, they're for anyone who knows someone. The cause is almost secondary. In some cases, the price of the ticket isn't *all* that much more than it might cost to spend a comparable evening in a restaurant and a club show afterwards. And you have the added bonus of being among others who are there for social reasons, not to get drunk and puke on someone's shoes.

Creative statistics are just rampant these days as every group with an agenda tries to find some way to make their point. This is obviously another example of it, and for the life of me I cannot see why so many people fall for it.

As for any accusations that you are instigating another round of North/South flamewars, fear not. Your point needing making (sadly) and anyone who wants to use this thread as an excuse to start region bashing needs to look into a mirror to locate the source of their problem.

I had begun to think I didn't type English anymore.