The Park Cities: Philanthropic, to a Point
The Chronicle of Philanthropy just released a study, comparing the charitable contributions of Americans, by ZIP code.
At first glance, the Park Cities are among the most charitable of all American municipalities:
75225: Gave an average of $25,764/household, or $165 million, collectively, good for 13th out of 28,725 ZIP codes
75205: Gave an average of $26,029/ household, or $130 million, collectively, good for 25th out of 28,725 ZIP codes
Incredible, right? Two of the most charitable ZIP codes in the country, right here in Dallas. Let’s delve a little deeper, though. You can also sort the results by percent of income given:
75225: Gave an average of 6.8 percent of its income, good for 4,467th out of 28,725 ZIP codes
75205: Gave an average of 6.4 percent of its income, good for 5,484th out of 28,725 ZIP codes
The nationwide average was 6 percent.
So, yes, the Park Cities deserve to be lauded for their giving; it’s more than virtually any other community in the country. But there are thousands of communities that donate a higher percentage of their incomes.
Also costs a heck of alot more to keep up with the Joneses around here….
Do we automatically jump to #1 and #2 after adding in the millions of dollars those same households donate to our school system to make up for the Robin Hood theft?
Also, was that including or excluding the forced charity that normal people would call a tax that our city council was/is considering?
Pingback:Dallas Philanthropy: Whose ZIP Giveth the Most? | FrontBurner
Since Mad for Plaid, PTAs, etc. are charities (donations are tax-deductible) my guess is contributions to those entities are already included in the total.
Good point Avid Reader. I also think donated time is important also.
I don’t see this as a contest, so don’t want to defend/ brag about rankings. But this is based on collective zip code, not individuals, so this doesn’t tell how generous individuals are. As an example, if a town has 100 people and 1 person donates $10M to a cause, the numbers would say that on average each person donated $100K, when that isn’t the case. Meanwhile, in another town the 100 people could each donate $1,000, so while their total would be $100K, you could consider them more generous individuals than the group that totaled $10M.
So what’s your point Bradford? Being in the top seventh isn’t enough? We’re not as good as we think we are?
Someone, somewhere gives more than we do?
Or is it just more PCP snark?
What do you want?
Settle down, Eric. It’s a valid point that in absolute dollars, we’re way up there, but as a percentage of income, we’re slightly above average. Not surprising in the observation, and nothing to get bent out of shape about.
Ah, statistics. You can use them in so many ways! Bradford just showed us two ways, and I don’t think he was trying to make any point in particular. But like any set of stats, there are flaws in how they are interpreted.
Consider the fact that their data comes from US Tax returns, meaning that anyone who does not itemize is listed as giving zero dollars. I’d imagine that most people in Park Cities zip codes itemize, but in many other cases, this probably causes their numbers to be more understated.
Consider also that the data comes from the 2008 tax year, a year in which itemized deductions was limited for couples earning over $160,000 (a large majority of Park Cities homes likely fall into that category). So many accountants might not have itemized all charitable contributions once they knew they were hitting their total deductions limit. So this could also understate the charitable contributions for our residents.
All in all I think both sets of numbers that Bradford gave us say a lot of positived for Park Cities residents.
Seems a large chunk of our school taxes should be included in the “Charitable giving” category since its not staying here but given to “the [property] poor” districts.
@Scott – “valid” point? Valid to what end? Meaningful and relevant in what way? As in the math is “valid”? Not my question. The question to Bradford – not you – is what is the point of his posting? What conclusion is he bringing to the reader’s attention?
Also, my mother is still allowed to tell me to settle down (though she hasn’t felt a need to do so in 40 years). You sir, are not my mother.
@Scott, I think 84th percentile and 81st percentile of the nation is more than “slightly above average”.
@Eric, This is the Park Cities People blog; our zips were included and the post is relevant and interesting.
And how much will these donations drop if proposed federal Tax hikes are enacted? Me thinks a whole bunch.
Amen to @Avid Reader’s comment regarding Robin Hood school tax.