Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters

by Arthur C. Brooks

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two givers and non-givers? Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares , he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give. Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Really Cares , Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, Sociology, Cultural, History, Social

250 pages, Hardcover

First published November 20, 2006

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 3 out of 5]

How often have you heard the myth that conservatives hate the poor and are selfish? This book debunks that myth using survey data to show that conservatives are far more generous than the general population despite making much less generally. Brooks also shows evidence that welfare spending crowds out charitable giving and even increases crime and creates dependency. The appendix in the end was a nice addition for academics.

Makers and Takers by Peter Schweizer is another excellent book similar to this one.

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in 2006, this book is a fascinating look at charitable giving in America. As can be seen in his extensive appendix, Brooks thoroughly researched this subject before coming to his conclusions. I found it interesting how similar the electoral map was to the charity map; red states give much more to charity than blue states. Brooks argues that supporting government welfare programs (through higher taxes on the wealthy) is NOT charity. He shows that the left considers income inequality a societal problem, while those on the right consider it to be a problem that affects individuals. Too often, people who support government redistribution policies don’t also feel a need to give voluntarily to charitable causes. “It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.” (p. 73) Another surprising finding is that a low-income working family (with the same income as a poor family on welfare) is more likely to give to charitable causes and to volunteer than is the family on welfare. Studies have found a tangible link between welfare receipt and criminality. In fact, researchers trying to prove that decreasing welfare payments in a community would lead to increased crime were surprised to discover the opposite: as welfare benefits decreased, criminal activity and substance use also decreased. Studies show that generous people (who give to charity and volunteer their time) are happier and healthier than non-givers.

Quotes:
“Four forces in modern American life are primarily responsible for making people charitable. These forces are religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism.” -p. 11

“When we look only at gifts of time and money to explicitly secular causes, how do religious and nonreligious people compare? Are the enormous giving differences wiped out? Not even close. Religious people are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way-- including secular donations, informal giving, and even acts of kindness and honesty-- than secularists.” -p. 38

“Before I started research for this book, I assumed that those people most concerned and vocal about economic inequality would be the MOST likely to give to charity. But I was wrong:...For many people, the desire to donate other people’s money displaces the act of giving one’s own. People who favor government income redistribution are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not.... Substituting political belief for personal sacrifice shows a lack of tangible personal responsibility toward others in need and represents a deeply troubling relationship between ideology and personal action on the political left.” -pp. 54-5, 62

Research about families shows: “People who have children are more generous than people who don’t…
Married people are generally a lot happier than unmarried people, and happiness is strongly associated with high levels of giving…
Liberals have fewer children than conservatives, which means that they are less likely to give and volunteer (because people with more children donate more time and money than those with fewer, even after correcting for income).”
” -pp. 98, 104, 109

“Supporting forced income redistribution suppresses private giving, and...charity and economic liberty are mutually reinforcing virtues.” -p. 114

“We saw that Americans are relatively unlikely to behave charitably if they are nonreligious, believe that it is the government’s job to redistribute income, and suffer from unstable family conditions. There is ample evidence that each of these forces is stronger in Europe than in America, and that these forces suppress charitable giving more in Europe than they do here.” -p. 124

“Charity unleashes enormous benefits not only to the givers themselves but also to their families, communities, and the nation...In addition to those in need of food, shelter, and education, the needy are also those who NEED to give to attain their full potential in happiness, health, and material prosperity-- which is every one of us.” -p. 173

“The evidence is clear that most Americans-- including the working poor-- are more interested in opportunity than in forced equality... Income equality-- when it comes at the cost of freedom and economic opportunity-- is not a mainstream American value.” -p. 179

[Fred Kohn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back again. This is the most biased book I have read in a good long while. The author's main point: religious people, and especially religious conservative people give more in charity than other kind of people. No big revelation there, but the secondary point is disturbing: the reason they give is because of their moral superiority. Honest to god, on p. 95 he actually talks about the ethics gap between givers and non-givers, noting that non-givers are also more likely to pocket extra change mistakenly given them in a transaction.

Why are givers so motivated to good? Why ask why? Brooks notes:

"George Bernard Shaw put it this way: 'Most of the money given by rich people in "charity" is made up of conscience money, "ransom," political bribery, and bids for titles. . . . One buys moral credit by signing a cheque, which is easier than turning a prayer wheel.' … Ultimately, however, the giver's motive is irrelevant." [sic]

Irrelevant?!? Well, only irrelevant if you say the motive is guilt. If you are writing the book, you get to say what motives are relevant and which are not. After all, the title of the book proclaims that conservative religious people are motivated to give more because they care more. And that, friends, is not irrelevant. Nor are any items on this list from p. 117: "At this point, we have firmly established the forces of charity: religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, work, and strong families." But of course not guilt, because that is irrelevant.

Could guilt be a motive for giving? Check this out from p.7: "In 2000, the main reason people offered for donating to charity was a sense of duty: About 80 percent of givers reported that they gave because 'those who have more should give to those who have less.' Other common reasons for giving included feeling that the giver owed something to his or her community; because of religious obligation or belief; and simply because of being asked to give."

Furthermore, Brooks notes that "religion and politics together make for a potent mix in stimulating charity [p. 36, emphasis original]". This makes a great deal of sense to me. We know from numerous robust studies that political conservatives are more motivated by fear than liberals. Religious guilt combined with fear make for a potent motivator. We know that people will act more morally simply if there is a drawing of a pair of eyes on the wall. Could the "moral gap" that Brooks perceives simply be a function of a healthy dose of good ol' fashioned fear of the Lord?

It seems to me that it would be easy enough to test for a correlation between giving and guilt, and it would be surprising if such a study had not been done. But even it had been, I doubt that it would have showed up in this book unless the results had showed no correlation. It seems to me that Brooks plays fast and loose with his studies. He even managed to find a study that found that Europeans were less happy than Americans! (That's pretty amazing, because every study I have seen on the subject has found the opposite.)

And take the study by Victoria L. Brown, Isaac D. Montoya, and Cheryl A. Dayton-Shotts: "Trends of Criminal Activity and Substance Use in a Sample of Welfare Recipients," Crime & Delinquency 50, no. 1 (2004) 6-23. Brooks calls this a "major study" even though it followed only 523 welfare recipients in one city (Houston). (This is hardly a major study, although it did clue me in to the fact that this is a book riddled with weasel words.) In the abstract, the authors write:

"Results show that a minority of welfare recipients were involved in criminal activity. Furthermore, although participants were losing their welfare benefits, both criminal activity and substance use declined over time."

Brooks neatly excises the last sentence and ignores the first to support his thesis that welfare is highly correlated with crime.

What is really annoying about this book is that Brooks is truly a sharp cookie and an academic to boot. There was no reason for this book to read like an apologetic for the Religious Right. Furthermore there were bright spots in the book, like the chapter "Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich." Nevertheless, it was not worth slogging through all the crap for these few diamonds in the dung.

[Chantal · Rating 4 out of 5]

The premise of this book is that the notion that liberals are the most virtuous members of society is simply not backed by the facts. Religious conservatives actually are far more charitable than liberals. In addition, government programs reduce voluntary charity both for the givers and the receivers. The author convincingly argues that there is intrinsic value in charitable giving, both monetary and non-monetary, for society as a whole.

To me, this book was FASCINATING. It squared with both my research and my life experience. I discovered this book last year while I was doing research for my Nonprofit Issues legal seminar class (which compared French non-profits to American non-profits). I told a friend of mine about it, he bought the book, and loaned it to me this past weekend (a year later). The fact is that Americans do give MUCH, MUCH more generously than other countries. This books explains that the reason is RELIGION in America. The stats overwhelmingly back it up.

Deep down I suspected that but without data, I couldn't soundly draw that conclusion. In my seminar paper I cited the difference of tax laws as the reason that American generosity is so much greater than other countries, but it didn't feel right. It didn't square with what I saw and experienced in France and the US.

When I first moved to France, one thing that really stuck me is how much less generous they are as a general population than Americans are. I only wish I could communicate the contrast. To be fair, recent statistics show that post-tax poverty rates are lower in France, but having lived among the poor there, and in the US, I still feel that the American poor are much better off on multiple levels.

I thought the author's insights on how virtues generate other virtues was interesting, and true. Religious people give more in general, and they still give more to secular causes than secularists, who are MUCH less likely to give despite their belief that incomes should be more equal. Parents (who would seem to have less time and resources) are more likely to give. Children raised in religious homes who later abandon their faith are still more generous because of the influence of their religious upbringing. One of my favorite quotes was that giving does not just make you feel better, it actually makes you better.

In almost every way, I fit the statistics of the people who generously give. I come from a very religious, politically conservative home, with two parents, and many children. My parents are very giving and set a great example. As an adult, I am actively involved in my church. And I am ridiculously happy most of the time. The fact that I am not married and do not have a family of my own, however, does work statistically against me. I seem to be constantly confronted with the reality that my parents are incredibly wise people. But do I give enough? That is something I'll have to grapple with.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

"America's sunny resistance to the hold of depressing European social theories may have helped provide a defense against the creep of secularism. Whatever the reason, there is no indication that the forces of American secularism are a political or social threat on any European scale, at least not yet. American charities can thank God this is so. (p 127).'

So it goes. Truth be told, I was taken aback and a little surprised by the disingenuous and not-quite-subverted political nature of this "social study" by Arthur brooks. If I may, its main conclusions are these:
1) Republicans are more generous than liberals
2) Religious people are more charitable than secularists
3) Higher income people are more generous than lower-income individuals
4) Smarmy Europeans, with their generous social safety nets, universal health care, and preponderance of non-rubes would do well to adopt our model of minimizing government aid to the poor and to charitable contributions and ride the ensuing onslaught of private giving
5) Beneficiaries of welfare are less likely to donate time/money than shitkickers who pulls themselves up by their bootstraps in between Sunday School lessons

You will too be shocked that the final chapter doesn't impugn pro-choicers' poor charitable spirit. This diatribe is blindingly partisan, and it can only be viewed through the lens of the apex of Republican high-spirits when it was written in the mid-end of 2005. It is also composed of conclusions adduced from the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and Giving and 2000 Volunteering Survey (GVS), which were compiled by the National Opinion Research Center. Why is this social scientist not given pause by the vast and overtly partisan ideas on offer? Must we be subjected to this repeated faux-admission: "while it is difficult to draw direct conclusions about cause and effect," before proceeding to direct claims about cause and effect?

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

The professor who asked me to read this book informed me that I would either love it or hate it. As you can see from the one star I gave it, I hated it. I would have put it down except 1) It was required reading, and 2) I had to finish it to know if it was really all bad, or if there would be some redeeming material. There was not. The book discusses how liberals are more associated with giving and concern for the general well being of others. But the book points out that studies have shown that conservatives are more likely to give to causes (mostly religious, but not necessarily). After finding out more about the author I feel that it is less of a defense of conservatives as it is a call to arms for liberals to increase their personal giving. I felt that this book was a good example of manipulating data and making it say whatever you want to say. His logic was flawed and weak. For example, he notes that people who give blood are more charitable and likely to give money to others. I have a hard time making that claim. The survay question asks if people give blood, and doesn't ask, "if not, why not?" How many people cannot give blood for health reasons? How many are just terrified of needles? I have a hard time judging whether or not people are charitable based on political affiliations or based on unrelated actions (or inactions).

[Darla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read...should help to dispel the myth that liberals care & conservatives are heartless grinches. The liberal author expected to find just that, but found exactly the opposite. Yeah, libs are great at giving away other peoples' money, but not so much their own. Even poor conservatives give more time and money than poor liberals...and interestingly, Religion seems to be the single biggest factor affecting the giving mentality. The more secular one is, the less likely he is to give at all.

[Nicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some stats are interesting, though less valuable than the author claims. His conclusions are overdrawn and unsubstantiated. It's interesting to see the role that religion and politics plays on people's generosity, but the author's libertarian agenda spoils his credibility.

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of this book refers to the surprising find that the author came across in his research: conservatives are much more generous than liberals. This flies in the face of the conventional wisdom where even president Bush had to brandish his 2000 campaign as "compassionate conservatism". It turns out "compassionate" is redundant: conservatives of all stripes outflank liberalism when it comes to charitable giving and generosity. This is a very stable and robust find, and it turns out that it does not depend on the kind of charity: money, time, treasure, blood donations, secular or religious causes, in all those categories conservatives, especially the religious kind, are by far more giving and generous than anyone else. One of the great strengths of this book is the reliance on empirical, quantifiable, data and not case studies or the word of mouth. Even though the book is data driven, it is eminently readable and should be read by anyone who has even the slightest interest in public policy debate.

[Leanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an eye opener. I learned a lot and had some ideas that I had believed in reversed. Everything isn't as it seems.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. Reading "Love your Enemies" earlier this year made me interested in reading some of Arthur Brooks’ other books. In this one he explores the data on the beliefs and behaviors of charitable people. He found that while political liberals are more supportive of government programs and believe they are more compassionate, they are actually the least likely to donate their time and money to helping the needy. While conservatives are more charitable than liberals, the biggest predictor of charitable giving (of both time and money to both secular and religious causes, as well as informal giving) is dedication to one’s religion. Religious people donate more time and money than nonreligious people, and the more dedicated you are to your religion the more charitable you are likely to be. Comparing charitable giving worldwide, Americans individually give more in time and money than other countries (and in most cases, a lot more). It was interesting to explore the data on giving as well as the personal benefits of being a giver (such as being happier and healthier). I wonder if the data has changed much since this was originally published.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book! Arthur Brooks points out the importance of charity and volunteering in a society. In direct opposition to what many people think, conservatives in America are actually more giving and compassionate than liberals, as shown in several studies that show they are more likely to donate to charity, donate more and are more likely to volunteer. There seems to be a strong correlation between religion, political preferences, welfare, family, and likelihood to donate to charity. Those that report to be more religious are also more likely to give formally and informally (and not just to religious organizations). Those receiving welfare are less likely to give to charity, while someone earning the same small amount on their own is more likely to give to charity. There seems to be an argument for the government to avoid redistributing wealth in America and let people keep more of their money in order to choose to donate to charity. The best place for people to learn to be charitable is in the home! Families that teach their children to give when they are young and see their parents give are more likely to give in the future. Interestingly enough, in other countries where the government is seen to be responsible to take care of everyone, people are much less likely to donate to charity. It seems to not be a coincidences that these countries (mostly in Europe) are also much more secular.

Not only does charity help the one receiving the donation or help, but the research shows that charity also makes the individuals giving healthy, happy, and rich! :) Charity is good for everyone...individually and collectively. Moral of the story....we should all be charitable! :) I know that thinking about these studies has made me consider charity and giving in my life.

Some of my favorite quotes from the book:
"The family that perseveres in good works will surely have an abundance of blessings." - Chinese Proverb

"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the creative light of altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life's persistent and most urgent question is, "What are you doing for others?" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

One of the best places I know to learn about charity: Moroni 7

[Kami · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is fascinating. Brooks does research to prove that Americans are charitable. His research proves it again and again. Turns out, those who believe people should help people, not the government, those who are religious, not on welfare, and have parents who teach generosity are more generous then their coutnerparts. The stats look at donations by gender, marital status, income level, education, state, political party, political beliefs, whether or not you have children, what country you live in, etc. After qualifying the results for many different senarios, those that make the difference are religion, belief that people should help others, not the government, not on welfare, and parents who teach generosity. Interesting. In a few places, I started skimming stats, but the results he found were interesting and made me feel good, since comparing my own personal giving percentages to national averages, I count as a giver. Even those who give blood or donate time by volunteering fit into the same categories. Not sure what it says about our nation. I was very proud to hear that the statistics all point to our country being the most generous of any other country in the world. I believe it. I see it all around me. An interesting fact, that if you take two people who are exactly the same in every category, except for how much they donate to charity, those who give, make more money. Weird, but it also makes sense that the more you give, the more comes back to you. Giving makes our whole country more prosperous. Fascinating how the stats point to that. I won't go into the details, but giving is important on many fronts, so keep on giving.

[Skylar Burris · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's not surprising (at least to me) that conservatives (and in particular religious conservatives) contribute more money to charities (both religious AND non-religious), volunteer more time to the service of others, and donate more blood than do liberals (and in particular secular liberals).

It seems to me logical that when one's political philosophy is that the government should provide for people, that one would be less inclined to help people directly oneself.

It also seems logical to me that when one's political philosophy is that the private individual and the private sector accomplishes things better than the government does, that one would be more inclined to help people through private means.

The fact that conservatives out-donate liberals in time, money, and even blood, however, apparently comes as a revelation to many, and so this book lays out, in full statistical clarity, "the surprising truth." The goal of the author is, in part, I believe, to encourage liberals to step up to the plate and starting giving more money to charity.

The statistics of course reflect broad categories and have nothing to say of any specific individual within a category.

The book is interesting in parts but rather dry over all. It would probably be of most interest to people who work for non-profit organizations or to conservatives who are tired of the stereotype that conservatives oppose the welfare state and the social security boondoggle and the tangled web of universal healthcare because they just don’t care if old people and children die in the street.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most interesting and profound books I've read this year

I'm a high school teacher that founded and sponsored the local Key Club (secular volunteer organization) at my high school for 7 years. My wife has been a professional volunteer coordinator for more than 15 years, in both religious and secular settings. There is nothing in these statistics that contradict our personal experiences.

So, what does Brooks say? "The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to the logic, is a form of charity. Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not voluntary sacrifice by individuals." (p. 20)

Brooks marshals a horde of facts to prove the point that the more politically liberal the individual, the community, the state, the country or the continent, the less likely that the individual, community, state, country or continent will be to donate to private charity in any form. Meaning, if a state voted for Bush in 2004, it generally gave more than a state that went for Kerry. The United States gives light years more to private charity than the nanny state European Union.

Why?

Generally speaking, it's because the general mindset is that there should be a government program to take care of that...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the findings Brooks had in regard to charitable giving, both money and time, and faith. He showed that people of faith, regardless of conservative or liberal, far out give and give generously to both religious and non-religious causes compared to secular people. He also showed the folks who support government-type intervention, a typical solution of the far left liberal, do not give their time or money to any causes in almost a "Scrooge-like" fashion.

There are greater stats he discusses but he lets the readers know that although he is religious liberal, he has to give the religious converatives a general applause for walking their talk. Moreover he discusses the great economy that works because people of faith give their time and money.

This is a book I found facinating, informative, and worthy to buy even after I had checked out from the library.

[Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a great book. It was very informative and had facts and charts to back up the facts . So there are no questions of the results of his findings. I do however found this book repetitive. I fell it could have been half the size . It would have been a 5 star book if it was shorter . I believe it could have all been covered without being repetitive at that length.

[Flora · Rating 2 out of 5]

Galvanizing concept, and it inspired me to give more to nonprofits, but the language is a bit polemical, and after a while I feel like he is beating a dead horse.

[Garrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thick read but a great breakdown of who actually give their own money to charity and why. One hint...it isn't the liberals.

[Greg Simpson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I believe that The Tea Party / ultra-right wing wrote it and was trying to make themselves feel better.... a truly god awful book that is misguided on who is who and what is what....

[David Petersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I decided to re-listen to this book. I love this book! When I originally read this book it was the first time I was exposed to Arthur Brooks as an author. I have really enjoyed all of his writings. The conservative heart is especially enjoyable. However, Who Really Cares still holds a special place in my heart. The author uses data to come to conclusions about the value of charity to individuals, neighborhoods, communities and the nation as a whole. I am a strong proponent of charitable giving both in time and money. I know for me it makes we a better person and less of a selfish jerk. The book reinforces this truth and so much more. GIVE! DONATE! SERVE! Not only will it bless those you help but it will improve your life as well! It is a positive feedback loop. I also appreciate the distinction of voluntary giving and forced redistribution through taxation. Conservatives are often painted as selfish and greedy but the evidence does not support that stereotype! I love it. Great book. Giving increases health, happiness, and financial position. There is NO downside!

[Junior · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've always felt a person's underlying worldview will impact how they live. When it comes to generosity, it's no different. If people believe the role of government is to legislate the equality of outcomes and income redistribution, then they are more likely to not give to charity. If people do not believe that is role of government, then they are more likely to be more charitable with both their time and money.

That seemed intuitive to me. Brooks puts the data and research behind it. "The forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one's own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals -- not the government -- offer the best soluation to social ills."

[Steve Lacey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who Really Cares

Like all of Brooks books, this one is superbly researched, articulate, provocative, and even generous with those who could be insulted by the research. He assiduously avoids the latter to an amazing degree. This is the fourth of his books I have read and I consider reading them all essential-one to the next!!

[Cris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly thorough statistical investigation of what segment of American society is charitable by the definition that A) they give their own money, B) Give by larger margins than the rest of the population and C) volunteer and perform other random acts of kindness more frequently. Annoying as it is that the author constantly repeats his conclusions, this does make the book easier to read. Also, the author is making sure that he is VERY clear about how he is deducing his conclusions by the stilted prose and by constantly citing what definitions mean and what sub-divisions of data sets he is looking at. Anyone inclined to argue that he cooked his data really ought to look at the very thorough appendix of data tables. Even if one could argue that the SGS data is sloppily compiled, which is not my impression, one would have to contend with the other sources that confirm his results. Doubters who are not familiar with how donating to a number of causes will multiply the number of similar envelopes in your mailbox, probably have not experienced the organized way in which modern charitable institutions share, prune and zero in on the generous-minded through modern marketing methods. If you like a particular color or activity, they know it.

The annoying part for some will be how those conclusions reflect on their politics, or maybe they'll take it as the challenge Brooks seems to think it should be.

Brooks who is a liberal reports that against his expectations, he found that religious conservatives donate more often, in greater dollar amounts and to a greater variety of causes despite their income levels than secular conservatives, secular liberals and religious liberals, moderates and centrists. This in itself is not a surprising finding, I suspect. However, I think his secondary conclusions are not as firmly grounded as some of us would like to believe. Grudgingly extolling the fact that conservatives DO practice personal responsibility in the form of charity, he makes some claims that I'm not sure pan out. He claims for example that because this generous segment of the population is larger than the other four segments, that personal responsibility is the way in which the country will swing politically in the long run. I think here he would have been better served to compare charity across the two centuries of the country before proposing this. My feeling is that the percentage of the population who gives and favors personal responsibility is probably shrinking. Maybe Brooks ought to update his book.

[John Waldrip · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderfully researched resource that anyone connected with a non-profit would do well to read. The author explodes a number of myths with hard data. It is an eye-opener!

[Paul Dubuc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Given a fair reading, this book will be an eye-opener for some, and an encouragement to others. I hope there's no cause for cynicism or gloating. Keep in mind that this is a broad brush, "big picture" kind of book. Brooks is careful to point out that his study is not predictive of individual behavior, but measures influential factors on a large scale. Subtitled America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters, this is fascinating and well documented study of correlations between charitable giving and things like religion, sociopolitical and economic views, family structure and work ethic. Brooks finds a very strong correlation between religion and giving; not just giving to religious charities but to secular ones as well, giving time and money to help others. Conservatives were much more charitable as a group than Liberals owing largely to a difference in philosophy on who is responsible for caring for those in need. Those who place less responsibility on government are more generous with their own time and money. The working poor tend to give a much larger percentage of their time and money for helping others than any other group. Charitable values are largely passed on by example from parents to children in intact healthy families. Brooks also draws some interesting comparisons of charitable activity in the USA and Europe. He finds that where government becomes more of a caretaker, people become less charitable and less prosperous. Brooks finds a strong correlation between charitable activity and the economic prosperity of a country, seeing trends that discourage personal giving as worrisome. Many commonly held stereotypes are contradicted in this book. Brooks was very surprised to see his own findings contradict the assumptions he had going into the study. I came away from the book feeling encouraged that there are a lot of good people in this country who ought to get to know one another better. I highly recommend it.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

I caught a snippet of an author interview on NPR one day which piqued my interest.

Arthur Brooks has made a career of studying charitable giving. What he found surprised even himself. There is a vast charity divide in America. On one side of that divide are people who are very giving, not only of their money but their time. On the other side are people who give significantly less or not at all. The surprising thing is who those people are and the common traits that run through each group - their politial views, left or right, and their religiousness.

Here's Brooks, "Imagine two people: One goes to church every week and strongly rejects the idea that it is the government's responsibility to redistribute income between people who have a lot of money and people who don't. The other person never attends a house of worship and strongly believes the government should reduce income differences. Knowing only these things, the data tell us that the first person will be roughly twice as likely as the second person to give money to charities in a given year, and will give away more than one hundred times as much money per year (as well as fifty times more to explicitly nonreligious causes.)"

Wow. The book is full of surprising and well-documented information like this. This is a must-read book for anyone wishing to comment on the left/right, rich/poor, public/private, and charitable issues in America.

I found the most surprising thing is that the data support the conclusion that giving is good for you, not only morally, but financially. Virtue really is its own reward!

Highly recommended.

[Bookwyrmgyrl]

Lots of compelling data presented here on who donates time and money, etc. The author writes about the data in a very readable style, and has a wonderful way of explaining in layman’s terms how the scientific research projects were set up and run, and how they are interpreted. I felt like I was researching the data myself, with Brooks as my guide, showing me the ropes.

Brooks says, “When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals – who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did – would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led to the opposite conclusions, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

He also said that: “These are not the sorts of conclusions I ever thought I would reach, when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, ten years ago.”

[Laralee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Arthur C. Brooks wants the value of giving taught and practiced more widely. Why? Because people who give money, time, and/or blood are happier and wealthier than statistically identical people who do not. Because the economy is benefited in measurable ways by the charity of the citizenry. Because giving voluntarily is better for all involved than the forced redistribution of wealth (i.e. taxes and social programs)


If we want to really be happy and prosperous we will learn to give more, and teach it to our children, our friends, and our neighbors.


Some of his findings:

Givers are happier than non-givers

The working poor give more than the non-working poor (those on welfare)

Giving families and individuals earn more than statistically identical non-givers

Conservatives give more than liberals

Religious people give more than secular people

Those with more give more

Giving generates wealth (you can give before you have)

[Sue Tincher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was an interesting amalgamation of the data out there on who gives to charity. There are four main characteristics of a generous person: religious; not holding the belief that government should equalize income; not being on welfare; in an intact family. In other words, more apt to be a conservative. Brooks bases his conclusions on 10 studies of charitable giving, which are well documented and explained in the appendix. Although the book seems to go over the same numbers and concepts more than it needs to, it is an extremely important topic, as Brooks points out the importance of charity for both personal and national health. It added to the believability to me that Brooks had expected to find the opposite patterns of giving when he started his research. A very interesting and important book.