A Report on Charitable Giving in Hawaii

A Report On Charitableepo t O C a tab eGiving In Hawaii

Prepared for:pHawaii Community Foundation

August 2009

Ward Research, Inc. • 828 Fort Street, Suite 210 • Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 • Phone: (808) 522-5123 • Fax: (808) 522-5127

Table of ContentsIntroduction 5

PageIntroduction .........................................................................................................................................................................................5Methodology .........................................................................................................................................................................................7 Charitable Giving in Hawaii....................................................................................................................................................................11 Figure 1: Giving and Non-Giving Households (2009) ...............................................................................................................12 Figure 2: Method of Giving (2009).............................................................................................................................................13 Figure 3: Primary Method of Giving (2009)...............................................................................................................................14

Figure 4: Primary Method of Giving (Tracking) 15 Figure 4: Primary Method of Giving (Tracking) .........................................................................................................................15Figure 5: Methods of Giving (2009)...........................................................................................................................................16 Figure 6: Methods of Giving (Tracking).....................................................................................................................................17 Figure 7: Hawaii vs. US Mainland .............................................................................................................................................18 Figure 8: Mean and Median Giving For Households ................................................................................................................19 Figure 9: Hawaii Households (2009 Adjusted By CPI) .............................................................................................................20

Identifying Those Who Give 21Identifying Those Who Give...................................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 10: Giving By County (2009)..........................................................................................................................................22 Figure 11: Giving Cash vs. Goods By County (2009)...............................................................................................................23 Figure 12: Giving By Length of Residency (2009) ....................................................................................................................24 Figure 13: Giving By Length of Residency (Tracking) ..............................................................................................................25 Figure 14: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Length of Residency (2009) .........................................................................................26 Figure 15: Giving By Household Size (2009)............................................................................................................................27

Figure 16: Giving By Household Size (Tracking) 28 Figure 16: Giving By Household Size (Tracking) ......................................................................................................................28 Figure 17: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Household Size (2009).................................................................................................29 Figure 18: Giving By Ethnicity (2009)........................................................................................................................................30 Figure 19: Giving By Ethnicity (Tracking)..................................................................................................................................31 Figure 20: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Ethnicity (2009).............................................................................................................32 Figure 21: Giving By Age (2009)...............................................................................................................................................33 Figure 22: Giving By Age (Tracking) .........................................................................................................................................34

Figure 23: Giving Cash vs Goods By Age (2009) 35 Figure 23: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Age (2009) ....................................................................................................................35 Figure 24: Giving By Household Income (2009) .......................................................................................................................36 Figure 25: Giving By Household Income (Tracking) .................................................................................................................37 Figure 26: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Household Income (2009) ............................................................................................38 Figure 27: Giving By Home Ownership (2009) .........................................................................................................................39 Figure 28: Giving By Resident Status (2009)............................................................................................................................40 Figure 29: Giving By Marital Status (2009) ...............................................................................................................................41

Figure 30: Contributions From Children (2009) 42

2Ward Research, Inc. • 828 Fort Street, Suite 210 • Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 • Phone: (808) 522-5123 • Fax: (808) 522-5127

Figure 30: Contributions From Children (2009) ........................................................................................................................42 Figure 31: Giving By Educational Background (2009)..............................................................................................................43 Figure 32: Giving By Religion (2009) ........................................................................................................................................44 Figure 33: Giving By Religion (Tracking) ..................................................................................................................................45

Table of Contents (cont.) Page Identifying Those Who Give (Selected Charts Adjusted By Consumer Price Index) ................................................................46 Figure 34: Giving By County (2009 Adjusted By CPI) ..................................................................................................48 Figure 35: Giving By Length of Residence (2009 Adjusted By CPI) .............................................................................49 Figure 36: Giving By Household Size (2009 Adjusted By CPI).....................................................................................50 Figure 37: Giving By Ethnicity (2009 Adjusted By CPI)................................................................................................51

Figure 38: Giving By Age (2009 Adjusted By CPI) 52

g

Figure 38: Giving By Age (2009 Adjusted By CPI) .......................................................................................................52 Figure 39: Giving By Household Income (2009 Adjusted By CPI)................................................................................53 Figure 40: Giving By Religion (2009 Adjusted By CPI).................................................................................................54 Aspects of Charitable Giving ...................................................................................................................................................55 Figure 41: Amount of Planned/Budgeted Giving (2009) ...............................................................................................56 Figure 42: Amount of Planned/Budgeted Giving (Tracking) .........................................................................................57 Figure 43: Mechanisms For Giving – Top Responses (2009) ......................................................................................58 Figure 44: Mechanisms For Giving – Other Responses (2009)....................................................................................59 Mechanisms of Giving: Fundraisers.............................................................................................................................60 Motivations for Giving ..................................................................................................................................................62 Figure 45: Common Reasons For Giving – Top Responses (2009).............................................................................63 Figure 46: Common Reasons For Giving – Other Responses (2009) ..........................................................................64

Figure 47: “Big Reasons For Giving – Top Responses (2009) 65 Figure 47: Big Reasons For Giving Top Responses (2009) .....................................................................................65 Figure 48: “Big” Reasons For Giving – Other Responses (2009) .................................................................................66 Figure 49: Stopped Giving To Organization In Past Few Years and Why (2009) .........................................................67 Figure 50: Seasonal Patterns of Charitable Giving (2009) ...........................................................................................68 Figure 51: Timing of Charitable Giving (Tracking)........................................................................................................69 Figure 52: Anticipated Giving in 2010 (2009) ...............................................................................................................70 Figure 53: Type of Organization By Anticipated Giving (2009)....................................................................................71

Fi 54 E t t Pl i (2009) 73 Figure 54: Estate Planning (2009) ...............................................................................................................................73 Figure 55: Gone To Website To Research (2009) .......................................................................................................74 Figure 56: Giving By Website Research (2009) ...........................................................................................................77 Recipients of Charitable Giving ...............................................................................................................................................78 Figure 57: Giving Locally (2009) ..................................................................................................................................79

Figure 58: Giving Locally (Tracking) ............................................................................................................................80


Figure 58: Giving Locally (Tracking) ............................................................................................................................80 Figure 59: Giving Locally By Resident Status (2009) ...................................................................................................81 Figure 60: Giving Locally By Type of Resident (2009) .................................................................................................82 Figure 61: Giving Locally By Ethnicity (2009)...............................................................................................................83

Table of Contents (cont.) Share of Charitable Donations..................................................................................................................................84 Figure 62: Top Five Recipients of Charitable Giving (Tracking).....................................................................85 Figure 63: Additional Recipients of Charitable Giving (Tracking) ...................................................................86 Figure 64: Organizations’ Share of Donations and Contributions (2009) .......................................................87

Figure 65: Organizations’ Share of Goods Donated (2009) 88

Page

Figure 65: Organizations Share of Goods Donated (2009) ...........................................................................88 Figure 66: Share of Goods (Tracking)............................................................................................................89 Figure 67: Organizations’ Share of Monetary Donations (2009) ....................................................................90 Figure 68: Share of Monetary Donations (Tracking) ......................................................................................91 Figure 69: Average Total Donation By Category (2009) ...............................................................................92 Figure 70: Organizations Donated To By Ethnicity (2009) .............................................................................93

Figure 71: Giving To Religious vs Secular Organizations (2009) 94 Figure 71: Giving To Religious vs. Secular Organizations (2009)..................................................................94 Figure 72: Giving To Religious vs. Secular Organizations (Tracking) ............................................................95 Volunteer Profiles .....................................................................................................................................................96 Figure 73: Volunteering (2009) ......................................................................................................................98 Figure 74: Anticipated Volunteering (2009)....................................................................................................99

Figure 75: Volunteering By Island (2009).....................................................................................................100 Figure 75: Volunteering By Island (2009).....................................................................................................100 Figure 76: Volunteering By Length of Residency (2009)..............................................................................101 Figure 77: Volunteering By Age (2009)........................................................................................................102 Figure 78: Volunteering By Level of Education (2009).................................................................................103 Figure 79: Volunteering By Household Income (2009) ................................................................................104 Figure 80: Volunteering By Religious Affiliation (2009) ................................................................................105 Figure 81: Volunteering By Gender (2009) ..................................................................................................106g g y ( ) Figure 82: Charitable Giving Among Volunteers and Non-Volunteers (2009)..............................................107 Appendix Detailed Findings Sample Questionnaire


IntroductionThis report summarizes the primary findings from the Hawaii Giving Study, 2009. Commissionedby the Hawaii Community Foundation, the Study utilizes both primary and secondary data toprovide a comprehensive look at patterns of charitable giving and volunteerism in the State ofHawaii.

The Hawaii Giving Study, 2009 examines who gives to charitable organizations, how much theygive, to which types of organizations they give, and the motivations behind their giving.Collectively, those factors are referred to as “giving patterns” --- a term used throughout thisreport.

The Hawaii Giving Study, 2009 introduces a new mixed-method methodology combining atelephone survey with online, web-based primary data collection. This mixed-methodmethodology allows contact with those no longer with landlines (estimated at 20% of allhouseholds) and offsets possible skews linked to a landline telephone-only methodology (older,) p p y gy ( ,less mobile residents); thus allowing for better representation of the entire community.

The new mixed-method methodology also allowed for more flexibility with data analysis, allowingfor tracking against past data (by using the landline telephone-only sample) and adapting tochanging environment (by using the combined telephone-online sample) Upon further reviewchanging environment (by using the combined telephone-online sample). Upon further review,there were only minimal differences when comparing data from the telephone-only sample(weighted by age and island) to that for the mixed method data (weighted by householdcharacteristics regarding landline, internet, and cell phone and island). There were slight erratathat could be expected (e.g. mixed-method more likely than phone only to have contributed


p ( g y p yonline via Paypal, etc., due to the inclusion of the online sample) but distributions for keyquestions such as giving profile and volunteerism were virtually the same.

Introduction (cont.)The Hawaii Giving Study, 2009 tracks giving patterns against the benchmark Hawaii GivingStudy conducted in 1998 and a subsequent study conducted in 2001. The tracking datashown throughout this report is based only on the 2009 mixed-method sample, which factorsin both telephone and online methodologies and which may account for some slightdifferences when compared to a telephone only methodology. The reader also needs to keepin mind the relatively large gap in between the 2009 survey and the previous measure whichwas conducted 8 years ago (which will may also account for any large changes in givingb h i ) [N t It h ld b t d th t f l h t t ki h it bl d ti ibehavior). [Note: It should be noted, that for several charts tracking charitable donations indollar amounts, charts showing 2009 figures adjusted for inflation using the Consumer PriceIndex were also included in this report.]


MethodologyThe methodology employed for this study was a mixed-method methodology combining a telephonesurvey of n=513 tax-defined households throughout the State with an online survey of n=299 tax-definedhouseholds throughout the State. [Note: Throughout the study, a respondent’s household is defined asthe respondent and any other individuals who were included on the respondent’s tax return for 2008. Ai l id th f t i th t d fi d h h ld ] Fi ld d t f thsingle residence, therefore, may contain more than one tax-defined household.] Field dates for the

telephone survey were July 11, 2009 to August 4, 2009, while the online survey ran from July 23, 2009 toAugust 5, 2009. Maximum sampling error for the combined sample of n=812 respondents is +/- 3.4%.

Interviews were planned such that a minimum of n=400 interviews would be conducted among Oahuresidents and a minimum of n=400 interviews would be conducted among Neighbor Island residentsresidents and a minimum of n=400 interviews would be conducted among Neighbor Island residents.[Note: The final sample included n=406 surveys among Oahu residents and n=406 surveys amongNeighbor Island residents.] Total data was later weighted to reflect current population estimates for Oahu(71%), Maui County (11%), the Big Island (13%), and Kauai (5%).

Oahu Maui County Hawaii KauaiUnweighted Base (406) (147) (186) (73)Unweighted %'s 50.0% 18.1% 22.9% 9.0%Weighted Base (571) (90) (109) (39)Weighted %'s 70.6% 11.1% 13.5% 4.9%


MethodologyAs touched on in the Introduction, the mixed-method methodology allowed for greater contact with ayounger sample of respondents. This was ensured by a quota of n=200 of the online surveys beingconducted among a targeted 18 to 34 year old age segment; with the other n=100 distributed acrossthe 35+ age range. [Note: The final sample included n=191 online respondents between 18 and 34g g [ p pyears of age and n=108 online respondents 35+ years of age.]

For the online, web-based portion of the study, Ward Research worked with eRewards, a nationalonline managed panel, to survey Hawaii resident members of their panel. The online component wasprogrammed by Ward Research, who also worked closely with e-Rewards in handling the emailinvitations and monitoring of age quotas for the online component. In addition, Ward Research used itsown proprietary online panel, at www.thehawaiipanel.com, to supplement the 18 to 34 year old agesegment.

Given the mixed methodology employed for this study, the final sample of data was weighted by twott ib t 1) I l d d 2) h h ld d i ti i t f I t t l dli d llattributes: 1) Island and 2) household description --- in terms of Internet access, landline, and cell

phone. Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding whether they have Internet access(asked on telephone surveys; assumed for online surveys), have a landline (asked for online surveys;assumed for telephone surveys), and have a cell phone (asked for both surveys). It is estimated that71% of Hawaii households have Internet access and 80% of Hawaii households have a landline. Given% %these two assumptions, our combined methodologies will reach an estimated 90% of the population.


Methodology (cont.)Further calculations project the following distribution of households (based on all households in Hawaii): 54% of all households have Internet, have landline, have cell phone (reached by both telephone and online

methodology); 7% have Internet, have landline, do NOT have cell phone (reached by both methodologies); 10% have Internet, do NOT have landline, have cell phone (reached by online survey); <1% have Internet, do NOT have landline, do NOT have cell phone (reached by online survey); 10% do NOT have Internet, have landline, have cell phone (reached by telephone survey); and 9% do NOT have Internet, have landline, do NOT have cell phone (reached by telephone survey).

Total percentages were then reallocated so that the 90% of all households reachable via the mixed-method methodology would now be considered the total population of respondents as shown below. Theweighting of the final sample also assumed that these household proportions were consistent across all

= 90% of all households in Hawaii

weighting of the final sample also assumed that these household proportions were consistent across allislands.

60% have Internet, have landline, have cell phone (reached by both telephone and online methodology); 8% have Internet, have landline, do NOT have cell phone (reached by both methodologies);

11% have Internet do NOT have landline have cell phone (reached by online survey); 11% have Internet, do NOT have landline, have cell phone (reached by online survey); <1% have Internet, do NOT have landline, do NOT have cell phone (reached by online survey); 11% do NOT have Internet, have landline, have cell phone (reached by telephone survey); and 10% do NOT have Internet, have landline, do NOT have cell phone (reached by telephone survey).

100% f d t


= 100% of respondents

Methodology (cont.)The survey respondents were asked about the amount and type of charitable giving done by allmembers of their tax-defined household during the past 12 months. This report presents thefindings of the study as applied to the general population of tax-defined households in Hawaii.

The survey instrument utilized was the same survey instrument used in prior Hawaii GivingStudies, developed by the Hawaii Community Foundation.

Residents were screened to reflect the following characteristics:

All interviewing was conducted from the Ward Research Calling Center in the downtown Honolulu

18 years of age or older; and

Could answer for everyone in household included on the household’s 2008 Federal tax return.

office. Interviews were conducted between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on week nightsand 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. The Calling Center is equipped with a ComputerAssisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system which allows for the 100% monitoring of calls,through a combination of electronic and observational means. The 15-line CATI system tracks thedisposition of each call made enabling calculation of the penetration of volunteerism in thedisposition of each call made, enabling calculation of the penetration of volunteerism in thepopulation overall.


CHARITABLE GIVINGCHARITABLE GIVINGIN HAWAII


Overall, 92% of those tax-defined households in Hawaiimade a charitable donation in 2009. [Note: This number[factors in n=30 respondents who indicated on the phonethat they do not give to charity, who then immediatelyterminated the interview without proceeding to thedemographics section of the survey. The remainder ofg p ythis report will only consider the n=808 respondents whocompleted the survey.]

Figure 1: Giving and Non-Giving Households (2009)Do Not DonateDo Not Donate,

Completed Interview4%

Do Not Donate,Did NOTDid NOT

Complete Interview4%

Donate92%


Base: n=840 tax-defined households in HawaiiNote: Figure includes n=30 respondents who indicated on the phone that they do not give to charity, who then immediately terminated the interview without proceeding to demographics.

Roughly three-fourths of those tax-defined households surveyed indicated that they madedonations of new/used goods (77%) or canned goods/food items (74%) within the past year.Two-thirds wrote out a check (64%) to a charitable organization or cause, while roughly halfeither gave cash or change (54%) or volunteered time (47%).

Figure 2: Method of Giving (2009)100%

77% 74%80%

90%

100%

CASH GOODS TIME

64%

54%47%50%

60%

70%

47%

30%

40%

50%

19% 17%

1% 4%<1%

10%

20%


0%Check Cash/Change Credit Card Automatic

paymentsStocks/Bonds New/Used

GoodsCanned

Goods/FoodReal Estate Time Did Not Give

Base: n=808 tax-defined households in Hawaii surveyed

Figure 3: Primary Method of Giving (2009)

P i il Primarily Goods34%

Primarily Money57%

Considering all cash andgoods donations reportedlymade to charity in 2009, aslight majority of donorsslight majority of donorsindicated giving primarilymoney (57%). In comparison,one-third reportedly gaveprimarily goods (34%), withprimarily goods (34%), withthe remainder indicating noprimary method (9%). No Primary

method9%


Base: n=774 respondents who indicated that they made a charitable contribution

The proportion of contributors who donate primarily money (57%) has moved on agradual downward trend over the course of the tracking, with a recent shift toward equalconsideration to cash and goods donations.

Figure 4: Primary Method of Giving (Tracking)

63% 61%57%60%

70%1998

2001

2009

32%36% 34%

40%

50%

9%

20%

30%

5% 3%9%

0%

10%

Primarily Money Primarily Goods No Primary method



Figure 5: Methods of Giving (2009)

In addition to cash and goods, time(or volunteering) is also a means ofgiving. When factoring in donations

Cash-Goods36%

Figure 5: Methods of Giving (2009)

g g gof time, the overall distribution ofdonors in 2009 was as follows: Cash

7%

Ti

36%

• 7% donated cash only;• 8% donated goods only;

Goods8%

Time-Cash2%

• 8% donated goods only;• 0% donated time only;• 36% donated cash and goods;• 4% donated goods and time;• 2% donated cash and time; and

Goods-Time4%All Three

• 2% donated cash and time; and• 44% donated cash, goods, and

time

4%All-Three44%



Although cash-goods-time (44%) and cash-goods (36%) remained the two most popularmethods of giving among donors it should be noted that both these proportions havemethods of giving among donors, it should be noted that both these proportions havemoved on gradual downward trends over the course of the tracking. Over this sameperiod, the proportion of donors indicating that they give either goods only (8%) or cashonly (7%) have moved on gradual upward trends.

Figure 6: Methods of Giving (Tracking)

47%50%

60%

1998

200147%

41%46%

40%44%

36%40%

50% 2001

2009

20%

30%

5% 3% 3% 1% 1%5% 4% 2% 3%

0%

8% 7%4% 2% 0%

0%

10%



All-Three Cash-Goods Goods Cash Goods-Time Time-Cash Time

As shown below in Figure 7, a large majority of tax-defined households in Hawaii (92%)d h it bl t ib ti i 2009 Thi ti h b f i l i t tmade a charitable contribution in 2009. This proportion has been fairly consistent over

the course of the tracking.

Average charitable donations among giving households in Hawaii in 2009 was $1,467.

When compared to recent giving data for the U.S. Mainland*, a relatively greaterproportion of Hawaii households give to charity. However, the average amount given incash and goods per giving household has been significantly higher among households

th U S M i l don the U.S. Mainland.

Figure 7: Hawaii vs. US Mainland

U S Mainland Hawaii

2000 2002 2004 1998 2001 2009

Percent of all households giving 67% 69% 70% 88% 92% 92%

U.S. Mainland Hawaii

Average annual amount among giving households $2,368 $2,248 $2,333 $1,016 $1,123 $1,467

* Note: Figures for the U.S. Mainland from the Giving USA 2009 Annual Report on Philanthropy (p.50)


As shown below in Figure 8, those households that made some type of contribution tocharity in 2009 gave an average of $1 467 in cash and/or goods Based on allcharity in 2009 gave an average of $1,467 in cash and/or goods. Based on allhouseholds, both giving and non-giving, the average contribution dipped slightly to$1,402.

Figure 8: Mean and Median Giving For HouseholdsFigure 8: Mean and Median Giving For Households

Median MeanC t ib ti H h ld [92%]Contributing Households [92%]

Number of organizations given to 4.0 4.5A t ib ti t t l $548 $1 467 Average contribution total $548 $1,467

All HouseholdsAll Households Number of organizations given to 4.0 4.3

Average contribution total $500 $1 402


Average contribution total $500 $1,402

Given the relatively large gap in between the 2009 survey and the previous measure whichwas conducted 8 years ago, some changes may be attributed to inflation. In this report,was conducted 8 years ago, some changes may be attributed to inflation. In this report,several charts tracking charitable donations in dollar amounts are also shown with 2009figures adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.

Overall, based on adjusted 2009 figures, average annual amount given among givingO e a , based o adjusted 009 gu es, a e age a ua a ou t g e a o g g ghouseholds increased slightly from the previous measure. Considering the margin of errorand the eight-year gap, however, levels of reported giving actually have remained flat.

Figure 9: Hawaii Households (2009 Adjusted By CPI)g ( j y )

2009

Hawaii

2001 2009 (adjusted CPI)

Percent of all households giving 92% 92% 92%

*Note: Adjusted by CPI (converted to 2001 $US)

Average annual amount among giving households $1,123 $1,467 $1,148*


Note: Adjusted by CPI (converted to 2001 $US)

IDENTIFYING THOSEIDENTIFYING THOSEWHO GIVE


ISLAND

On average Oahu residents ($1 593) gave more to charity in 2009 far outdistancing KauaiOn average, Oahu residents ($1,593) gave more to charity in 2009, far outdistancing Kauai($1,148), Hawaii ($927) and Maui ($855) residents.

Figure 10: Giving By Island (2009)$1 800 90%

$1,593

$1 148

71%$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

70%

80%

90%

$855$927

$1,148

$800

$1,000

$1,200

40%

50%

60%

10%14%

5%$200

$400

$600

10%

20%

30%

5%

$0

$200

Oahu Maui Hawaii Kauai0%

10%

Average Contribution Percentage of Giving Households


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Oahu (405); Maui (132); Hawaii (184); Kauai (73) Note: “Maui” includes only Maui (Lanai and Molokai residents were excluded for this figure)

Average giving has increased among Oahu, Big Island, and Kauai residents since theprevious tracking, although average giving has declined noticeably among Maui residents.p g, g g g g y g

Figure 11: Giving By Island (Tracking)

$1,593$1,800

2001

$1,165$1,183 $1,148

$1,593

$1 200

$1,400

$1,600 2009

$780

$1,059$927

$855$800

$1,000

$1,200

$400

$600

$0

$200

Oahu Maui Hawaii Kauai


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Oahu (405); Maui (132); Hawaii (184); Kauai (73) Note: “Maui” includes only Maui (Lanai and Molokai residents were excluded for this figure)1998 data was not provided in the 2001 report.

Kauai residents and Oahu residents tended to skew more heavily toward cash donationsthan goods donations. In comparison, Maui residents tended to give a larger proportion ofgoods versus residents on other islands.

Figure 12: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Island (2009)

(28%)

(72%)

(61%)

$453

$522

$1,140Oahu

(61%)

(39%)

(69%)

$333

$643

$522Maui

(69%)

(31%)

(80%)

$284

$922

$643

Kauai

Hawaii

(20%)$226

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400

Kauai

Average Goods Contribution Average Cash Contribution


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Oahu (405); Maui (132); Hawaii (184); Kauai (73) Note: “Maui” includes only Maui (Lanai and Molokai residents were excluded for this figure)


LENGTH OF RESIDENCYFigure 12: Giving By Length of Residency (2009)

RENUMBER ALL FROM HERE FORWARD

Long-time residents of Hawaii, butnot lifetime residents, were thehighest volume givers in 2009.Households that have been in Hawaii

$2,35267%

$2,200

$2,400

$2,600

70%

80%

g g y g y ( )

for 20+ years gave an average of$2,352 to charity in the past year,practically twice as much as lifetimeresidents ($1,252) and those residing

f$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

50%

60%

in Hawaii for between 6 and 20 years($1,199). Newer residents of 5 yearsor less ($993) gave the least tocharity in the past year.

$993

$1,199 $1,252

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

30%

40%

7%11%

16%

$400

$600

$800

10%

20%

$0

$200

5 years or less6 to 20 years 20+ years Lifetime0%




Base: 5 years or less (54); 6 to 20 years (86); 20+ years (126); Lifetime (538)Note: Those who refused to specify their length of residency were removed.

There has been a gradual upward trend in the average amount given by lifetime Hawaiiresidents over the course of the tracking, while giving has been relatively steady amongnewer residents to the Islands. There has been greater fluctuation over time amongmoderate and long-time residents, most notably the latter segment.

Figure 13: Giving By Length of Residency (Tracking)$2 600

$2,352

$2,000

$2,200

$2,400

$2,600

1998

2001

2009

$1,220

$1,755

$1,473

$1,169$1,199 $1,252$

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

2009

$937$816$885

$ ,

$921$993

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$0

$200

$400

5 years or less 6 to 20 years 20+ years Lifetime


5 years or less 6 to 20 years 20+ years LifetimeBase: 5 years or less (54); 6 to 20 years (86); 20+ years (126); Lifetime (538)Note: Those who refused to specify their length of residency were removed.

Those who have lived here between 6 to 20 years donated more in goods than in cash tovarious charities. In contrast, long-time residents of 20+ years (but not lifetime residents)g y ( )were far more likely than other segments to donate cash instead of goods.

Figure 14: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Length of Residency (2009)

$383

$1 974

$869Lifetime

(84%)

(31%)

(69%)

$378

$532

$1,97420+ years

(44%)

(16%)

(84%)

$667

$714

$532

5 years or less

6 to 20 years

(72%)

(44%)

(56%)

$279

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

5 years or less

A G d C t ib ti A C h C t ib ti

(28%)



Base: 5 years or less (54); 6 to 20 years (86); 20+ years (126); Lifetime (538)Note: Those who refused to specify their length of residency were removed.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

On average two-person households ($1 956) gave the most to charity in 2009 farOn average, two person households ($1,956) gave the most to charity in 2009, faroutdistancing average contributions reported for three-person ($1,293), four+ person($1,106), or single-person ($1,007) households.

Figure 15: Giving By Household Size (2009)g g y ( )

$1,956

35%32%

$1,800

$2,000

$2,200

30%

40%

$1,007

$1,293$1,106

32%

$1 000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

20%

30%

15%17%

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

10%

$0

$200

One Two Three Four+0%


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; One person households (124); Two (262); Three (140); Four+ (281)


There have been noticeable increases in giving among two-person and three-personhouseholds since the previous measure in 2001. There has also been an upward trend ingiving for single person households over the course of the tracking In contrast averagegiving for single-person households over the course of the tracking. In contrast, averageamount of charitable giving declined among larger households since the prior measure.

Figure 16: Giving By Household Size (Tracking)$2 500

$1,956$2,000

$2,5001998

2001

2009

$1,435$1,293

$1 106

$1,500

$537$681

$890$1,015

$795$959 $908

$1,007$1,106

$1,000

$0

$500



One Two Three Four+

The proportion of goods donated to charity --- relative to the total amount of goods andcash donated --- increases with household size.

Figure 17: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Household Size (2009)

$790 (78%)

$217

$1,485

$790One

(78%)

(22%)

(76%)

$471

$908

$1,485

Th

Two(76%)

(24%)

(70%)

$385

$675Four+

Three(30%)

(61%)

$431

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800

Four


(39%)




ETHNICITY

Caucasian heads of household ($1,621) gave the most to charity, followed by HawaiianCaucas a eads o ouse o d ($ ,6 ) ga e e os o c a y, o o ed by a a aheads ($1,382). Filipino household heads tended to give the least to charity ($761). Itshould be noted that those heads classified outside the four larger ethnic segments gave themost, on average, to charity in the past year --- driven primarily by Chinese ($2,540) andMixed ($1,679) heads of household. [Note: Further detail is shown in Figure 68.]($ , ) [ g ]

Figure 18: Giving By Ethnicity (2009)

$2,400$2,600 40%

$1,621$1,382

$1,96634%

$1 400$1,600$1,800$2,000$2,200$ , 00

30%

$961$761

10%

16%18%

22%

$600$800

$1,000$1,200$1,400

10%

20%

10%

$0$200$400

Caucasian Japanese Filipino Hawaiian Other0%



Base: Caucasian (270); Japanese (177); Filipino (79); Hawaiian (125); Other (144)Note: Those who refused to specify their ethnicity were removed.

Since the previous measure in 2001, there have been increases in giving across allhouseholds except those headed by Filipinos.households except those headed by Filipinos.

Figure 19: Giving By Ethnicity (Tracking)

$2 200

$2,400

1998

$1,621

$1,966

$1 600

$1,800

$2,000

$2,20020012009

$921 $945

$1,301

$1,030$940 $968$961

$1,382

$1 000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$921$787 $729

$469

$710

$$761

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$0

$200

$400

Caucasian Japanese Filipino Hawaiian Other



p p

The proportion of goods donated to charity --- relative to the total amount of goods andh d t d l ti l hi h h h ld h d d b H ii dcash donated --- was relatively higher among households headed by Hawaiians and

Filipinos.

Figure 20: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Ethnicity (2009)

$429

$744

$1,192

Japanese

Caucasian (74%)(26%)

(77%)

$287

$217

$474Filipino

Japanese ( )(23%)

(62%)(38%)

$461

$635

$1,505

$747

Other

Hawaiian (54%)(46%)

(77%)$461

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800


(23%)



AGE

For the most part, contributions to charity increase directly with age.For the most part, contributions to charity increase directly with age.Respondents 65+ years of age indicated that they donated anaverage of $1,839 to charity over the past year, while those betweenthe ages of 18 to 24 years reportedly gave an average of $604.

Figure 21: Giving By Age (2009)

$1,839$1 800$2,000

$2,200

25%

30%

$1,080 $1,055

$1,504$1,634

17%

21%23%22%

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

15%

20%

25%

$604 12%

17%

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

5%

10%

15%

5%$0

$200

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+0%




Base: 18 to 24 (39); 25 to 34 (179); 35 to 44 (98); 45 to 54 (134); 55 to 64 (166); 65+ (182)Note: Those who refused to specify their age were removed.

Since the previous measure, charitable giving has increased dramatically across the threeoldest segments --- 45 to 54 year olds, 55 to 64 year olds, and those 65+ years of age. Incontrast charitable giving declined among those between 18 to 24 years of age and thosecontrast, charitable giving declined among those between 18 to 24 years of age and thosebetween 35 to 44 years of age.

Figure 22: Giving By Age (Tracking)$2,000

$1,504$1,634

$1,839

$1,600

$1,800

$ ,

1998

2001

2009

$1,076

$1,297

$937$1,080 $1,130

$954 $904

$1,194

$925$1,055

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$707$550

$430$346

$604$600

$800

$346

$0

$200

$400


18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+Base: 18 to 24 (39); 25 to 34 (179); 35 to 44 (98); 45 to 54 (134); 55 to 64 (166); 65+ (182)Note: Those who refused to specify their age were removed.

The proportion of goods donated to charity --- relative to the total amount of goods and cashdonated --- was comparatively higher among those between 35 to 44 years, between 25 to34 years, and between 18 to 24 years, as compared to those in the three oldest segmentswho tended to give cash.

Figure 23: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Age (2009)

$444

$254

$636

$350

25 to 34

18 to 24 (58%)(42%)

(59%)(41%)

$529

$444

$1,136

$52635 to 44 (50%)(50%)

(41%)

(76%)

$465

$368

$1,169

$1,136

55 to 64

45 to 54

(72%)(28%)

(76%)(24%)

$306$1,533

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800

65+


(83%)(17%)


Base: 18 to 24 (39); 25 to 34 (179); 35 to 44 (98); 45 to 54 (134); 55 to 64 (166); 65+ (182)Note: Those who refused to specify their age were removed.


HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Not surprisingly, average charitable contributions increases along with annual household income.p g y, g gThose from households with reported annual income of $150,000+ donated more than two timesas much as those from households reporting annual income between $50,000 to $75,000 andmore than five times as much as those from households under $25,000.

Figure 24: Giving By Household Income (2009)Figure 24: Giving By Household Income (2009)

$1 850$2,103

$2,42025%

$2 000$2,200$2,400$2,600 30%

$1,109

$1,850

15%

19% 18%17%

$1 200$1,400$1,600$1,800$2,000

20%

$464

$839

$1,109

6%$400$600$800

$1,000$1,200

10%

$0$200$400

Under $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $75K $75K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K+0%



Base: Under $25,000 (104); $25,000 to $50,000 (176); $50,000 to $75,000 (134); $75,000+ (126); $100,000+ (116); $150,000+ (40)Note: Those who refused to specify their household income were removed.


Charitable giving has increased among upper-income households of $75,000+ since theprevious measure, and has moved on a gradual upward trend among those from lower-income households of under $25 000 In comparison charitable giving declined amongincome households of under $25,000. In comparison, charitable giving declined amongthose with mid-range annual income between $25,000 and $75,000.

Figure 25: Giving By Household Income (Tracking)$2 600

$2,294

$1 807$2,036

$2,000

$2,200

$2,400

$2,600

1998

2001

2009

$1,107

$1,402

$1,807

$1,109$1 200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,8002009

$359

$683

$1,013

$434

$1,107

$464

$839

$1,109

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$359

$0

$200

$400

Under $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $75K $75K+


Base: Under $25,000 (104); $25,000 to $50,000 (176); $50,000 to $75,000 (134); $75,000+ (282)Note: Those who refused to specify their household income were removed.

The proportion of goods donated to charity --- relative to the total amount of goods andcash donated --- was higher among lower-income households of under $25,000.

Figure 26: Giving Cash vs. Goods By Household Income (2009)

$720$1,700

$150K+ (70%)(30%)

(68%)

$628

$

$1 385

$1,555$100K+

(30%)

(71%)(29%)

(68%)(32%)

(74%)(26%)$287

$651

$822

$1,385

$50K to $75K

$75K+

(26%)

(67%)(33%)

(51%)

$274

$287

$238

$565$25K to $50K

(51%)(49%)$226

$238

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800

Under $25K




Base: Under $25,000 (104); $25,000 to $50,000 (176); $50,000 to $75,000 (134); $75,000+ (282); $100,000+ (156); $150,000+ (40)Note: Those who refused to specify their household income were removed.

$1 800 90%

Figure 27: Giving By Home Ownership (2009)

$1,592

67%$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

70%

80%

90%

HOME OWNERSHIP

$1,122

$795$1,000

$1,200

50%

60%

Those who own their primaryresidence ($1,592) contributedmore to charity than did those

h t ($1 122) d t i

$795

26%

$400

$600

$800

20%

30%

40%

who rent ($1,122) and twice asmuch as those who occupy thehome they live in withoutpayment ($795).

8%

$0

$200

$400

0%

10%

20%

Own Rent Occupy withoutpayment



Base: Own home (533); Rent home (203); Occupy without payment (60)Note: Those who did not specify home ownership status were removed.

Figure 28: Giving By Resident Status (2009)

$1,415

96%

$1,600

$1,800

80%

90%

100%

FULL-TIME/PART-TIME RESIDENT

As expected, full-time residents($1 415) t h iti th

$1,107

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

60%

70%

80%

($1,415) gave more to charities thandid part-time residents ($1,107) wholive outside of Hawaii for more than100 days per year. $600

$800

$1,000

30%

40%

50%

4%$200

$400

10%

20%

$0

Full-Time Resident Part-Time Resident0%



Base: Full-time resident (771); Part-time resident (34)Note: Those who did not specify residency status were removed.

Figure 29: Giving By Marital Status (2009)MARITAL STATUS

Married respondents ($1,758)reportedly gave the most toh it i 2009 f ll d b th

$1,758

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

60%

70%

charity in 2009, followed by thosewho are divorced, widowed, orseparated ($1,141) and thosewho are single ($873).

$873

$1,141

57%

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

40%

50%

$873

29%

$400

$600

$800

20%

30%

14%

$0

$200

$400

Single Married Separated0%

10%

Single Married Separated,Widowed,Divorced



Base: Single (232); Married (455); Divorced/Widowed/Separated (109)Note: Those who did not report their marital status were removed.

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CHILDREN

As seen in Figure 30 below households with children whoAs seen in Figure 30 below, households with children whoparticipate in charitable giving ($1,776) tend to give moreto charity on average than do households with childrenwho do not participate in charitable giving ($1,176).

Figure 30: Contributions From Children (2009)

$1,776$2,095

$1 800$2,000$2,200

40%

50%

$1,176 $1,167

27% 25%

38%

$1,000$1,200$1,400$1,600$1,800

%

30%

40%

25%

10%$200$400$600$800

10%

20%

$0

Yes, ChildrenParticipate

No, Children Do NotParticipate

No Children/ChildrenToo Young

Not Sure0%



Base: Kids in HH who give (208); Kids in HH do not give (193); Not sure (76); No kids/Kids too young (294)Note: Those who refused to answer regarding children in HH were removed


EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Figure 31: Giving By EducationalBackground (2009)

Not surprisingly, average donations tocharity increased directly with level ofeducation; which in turn, is highly linked tomore lucrative careers (and likewise

$2,287$2,200

$2,400

$2,600 40%

Background (2009)

more lucrative careers (and likewise,household income as seen in Figure 24).Average donations made by those withgraduate school experience or higher werereportedly two times that made by those

30% 30%

21%$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

$ ,

30%

reportedly two times that made by thosewho were college graduates or those whohad some college background; and nearlythree times that made by those with highschool or less $808

$1,301 $1,30619%21%

$1,000

$1,200

$1,40020%

school or less.

$200

$400

$600

$800

10%

$0

$200

High Schoolor less

SomeCollege

CollegeGrad

Grad orHigher

0%

A erage Contrib tion Percentage of Gi ing Ho seholds


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; High School or less (153); Some college (240); College grad (235); Grad or higher (167)


RELIGION

O th f th Ch i ti d i ti l di C th li dOn average, those from other Christian denominations excluding Catholics andProtestants ($2,117) gave more to charity in 2009 than did those of other denominations.Those without a religious affiliation gave an average of $938 to charity in the past year,ahead of those households with non-Christian beliefs ($792).

Figure 32: Giving By Religion (2009)

$2,117$2 000$2,200

$2,400 50%

$1,257$938

38%

$1 200

$1,400$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

30%

40%

$958$792

$938

20% 22%

$600

$800$1,000

$1,200

10%

20%

8%12%

$0

$200$400

Catholic Protestant Other Christian Other-Not Christian None or Refused0%

10%


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Catholic (162); Protestant (68); Other Christian (301); Other Not Christian (94); None/Refused (183)


Those practicing other Christian beliefs aside from Catholics and Protestants were at theforefront of charitable giving in 2009, given the fairly even distribution among the primaryforefront of charitable giving in 2009, given the fairly even distribution among the primaryreligious segments displayed in prior tracking.

Figure 33: Giving By Religion (Tracking)$2,500

1998$2,117

$2,000

199820012009

$1,257$1,500

$777 $806$683$635

$722 $774 $714

$468

$958$792

$938

$500

$1,000

n/a n/a$0

$500

Catholic Protestant Other Christian Other Not Christian None or Refused


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Catholic (162); Protestant (68); Other Christian (301); Other Not Christian (94); None/Refused (183)Note: 1998 figures for “Other-Christian” and “Other-Not Christian” were not provided.

Catholic Protestant Other-Christian Other-Not Christian None or Refused

IDENTIFYING THOSEIDENTIFYING THOSEWHO GIVE

(SELECTED CHARTS(SELECTED CHARTS ADJUSTED BY

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX)


The following section re-examines several of the charts reported in the previousThe following section re examines several of the charts reported in the previoussection, with 2009 figures adjusted for inflation by the Consumer Price Index. In thesection to follow, 2009 figures have been converted to 2001 dollars as a basis forcomparison.


After adjusting for inflation in 2009, Oahu residents still gave considerably more to charitythan did Neighbor Island residents. There has been a large decline in charitable giving

M i id t ith i fl t ti i i i tt id t f O hamong Maui residents, with minor fluctuations in giving patterns among residents of Oahu,the Big Island, and Kauai.

Figure 34: Giving By County (2009 Adjusted By CPI)$1 800

$1 246$1,400

$1,600

$1,80020012009 (adjusted CPI)

$1,183 $1,165

$780

$1,059

$898

$1,246

$1,000

$1,200

$780 $725$669

$400

$600

$800

$0

$200

$400


Oahu Maui Hawaii KauaiBase: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Oahu (405); Maui (132); Hawaii (184); Kauai (73) Note: “Maui” includes only Maui (Lanai and Molokai residents were excluded for this figure)

Adjusted 2009 figures show minor changes in giving among lifetime Hawaii residents, aswell as newer residents to the Islands. There is still a pronounced increase in givingamong long-time residents and a marked decline in giving among those living in theIslands between 6 to 20 years.

Figure 35: Giving By Length of Residency (2009 Adjusted By CPI)

$1,473

$1,840

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

20012009 (adjusted CPI)

$885

$ ,

$1,169

$921$938 $979$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$885$777

$400

$600

$800

$0

$200

5 years or less 6 to 20 years 20+ years Lifetime


Base (2009): 5 years or less (54); 6 to 20 years (86); 20+ years (126); Lifetime (538)Note: Those who refused to specify their length of residency were removed in 2009.

y y y

After adjusting for inflation in 2009, there is a noticeable increase in giving among two-person households, as well as a large decline in giving among larger households of four ormore occupants Previously noted increases in giving among one person and three personmore occupants. Previously noted increases in giving among one-person and three-personhouseholds are not as pronounced.

Figure 36: Giving By Household Size (2009 Adjusted By CPI)

$1,435$1,530

$1,400

$1,600

$1,8002001

2009 (adjusted CPI)

$795

$959 $908$788

$1,011$865$1,000

$1,200

$795 $788

$400

$600

$800

$0

$200

$400


Base (2009): One person households (124); Two (262); Three (140); Four+ (281)

One Two Three Four+

Based on adjusted 2009 figures, there is a notable decline in giving among Filipino heads ofhousehold, and a large increase in giving among “other” (Mixed, Chinese, African-American,t ) h d f h h ld P i l t d i th th i t letc.) heads of household. Previously noted increases among other ethnic segments are less

notable after factoring for inflation.

Figure 37: Giving By Ethnicity (2009 Adjusted By CPI)$2 000

$1,538$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

2001

2009 (adjusted CPI)

$1,301

$1,030$940 $968

$1,268

$1,081$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$710 $752$595

$400

$600

$800

$0

$200

Caucasian Japanese Filipino Hawaiian Other


Base (2009): Caucasian (270); Japanese (177); Filipino (79); Hawaiian (125); Other (144)Note: Those who refused to specify their ethnicity were removed in 2009.

p p

After adjusting for inflation in 2009, charitable giving has increased dramatically across thetwo oldest segments (55 to 64 year olds and those 65+ years of age), while decliningsharply among those between 18 to 24 years of age and those between 35 to 44 years ofage. A previously noted increase in giving among 45 to 54 year olds was less pronouncedafter adjusting the 2009 figures.

Figure 38: Giving By Age (2009 Adjusted By CPI)Figure 38: Giving By Age (2009 Adjusted By CPI)

$1,278$1 194

$1,297$1,439

$1 176

$1,400

$1,600

20012009 (adjusted CPI)

$937$825

$904

$1,194

$925

$707

$1,176

$845$800

$1,000

$1,200

$472

$707

$400

$600

$800

$0

$200

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+


Base (2009): 18 to 24 (39); 25 to 34 (179); 35 to 44 (98); 45 to 54 (134); 55 to 64 (166); 65+ (182)Note: Those who refused to specify their age were removed in 2009.

Based on adjusted 2009 figures, previously noted increases among upper-incomehouseholds of $75,000+ and lower-income households of under $25,000 have been erased.D li i h it bl i i th ith id l i b t $25 000Declines in charitable giving among those with mid-range annual income between $25,000and $75,000 are still apparent. [Note: Those who refused to given their household incomegave an adjusted average of $1,615 to charity in 2009.]

Figure 39: Giving By Household Income (2009 Adjusted By CPI)Figure 39: Giving By Household Income (2009 Adjusted By CPI)

$1,807

$1,593$1 600

$1,800

$2,000

2001

2009 (adjusted CPI)

$1,107

$1,402

$867$1 000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$434$363

$656

$867

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$0

$200

$400



Base (2009): Under $25,000 (104); $25,000 to $50,000 (176); $50,000 to $75,000 (134); $75,000+ (282)Note: Those who refused to specify their household income were removed in 2009.


After adjusting for inflation in 2009, those practicing other Christian beliefs aside fromCatholics and Protestants remain at the forefront of charitable giving in 2009.Catholics and Protestants remain at the forefront of charitable giving in 2009.

Figure 40: Giving By Religion (2009 Adjusted By CPI)

$1,656$1,800

2001

$1 200

$1,400

$1,6002001

2009 (adjusted CPI)

$635$722 $774

$714$749

$983

$620$734$800

$1,000

$1,200

$635

$468

$620

$400

$600

$0

$200

Catholic Protestant Other-Christian Other-NotCh i ti

None or DK


Base (2009): n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households; Catholic (162); Protestant (68); Other Christian (301); Other Not Christian (94); None/DK (183)

Christian

ASPECTS OFASPECTS OFCHARITABLE GIVING


Figure 41: Amount of Planned/Budgeted Giving (2009)

Don't Know21%

Most is planned

12%

BUDGETING

21%

About half planned

12%

One in 8 respondents said thatmost of their giving is planned(12%). A comparable proportionf d i di d hof respondents indicated that

about half of their giving isplanned (12%), or that very littleis planned (13%). Two in fivei di t d th t littl (43%)

Very little planned

13%Little or none is planned

indicated that little or none (43%)of their giving is budgeted.

p43%

Definitions: “Most is planned” = 75% or more“Ab t h lf l d” 26% t 75%


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households

“About half planned” = 26% to 75%“Very little planned” = 10% to 25%“Little or none is planned” = Less than 10%

Figure 42: Amount of Planned/Budgeted Giving (Tracking)

68%70%

80%1998

2001

2009

*

49%

43%50%

60%2009

Over the course of the tracking,there has been very littlefluctuation in behaviors related tothe planning and budgeting of 43%

30%

40%

the planning and budgeting ofcharitable giving. For the mostpart, Hawaii residents do not plantheir charitable giving in advance.

14% 13%10%

16%

10%7%

13% 12% 12%10%

20%

7%

0%

10%

Little or none isplanned

Very littleplanned

About halfplanned

Most is planned


Base (2009): n=808 Hawaii tax-defined householdsNote: *2001 calculations removed those who responded “don’t know”. 1998 and 2009 figures reflect the entire sample.

p p p

MECHANISMS FOR GIVING Figure 43: Mechanisms For Giving – Top Responses (2009)

When asked in what ways theygave to charity in the past 12months, those surveyed citedsupporting fundraisers (72%),

77%78%

72%80%

90%199820012009

pp g ( ),dropping money into acollection box or cup (57%),and giving offerings, tithes, orgifts to a church or temple

66%61%

64%65%

52%57%

50%

60%

70%

g p(52%) as their most commonprompts for charitable giving.

Top mechanisms are shown toth i ht i Fi 43 ith th

43%

37%41% 41%43% 43%

30%

40%

50%

the right in Figure 43, with theremainder of the mentionsshown in Figure 44 on thefollowing page. It should be

t d th t th h b 10%

20%

30%

noted that there has been agradual upward trend in thoseciting asked by anacquaintance and a sharpd li i th iti k d b

0%

10%

Supportfundraisers

Collectionbox/cup

Church, temple Direct mail Asked byacquaintance


decline in those citing asked bya stranger.

Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined householdsNote: Multiple responses were accepted

Figure 44: Mechanisms For Giving – Other Responses (2009)

50%46%

50%

60%1998

2001

2009

41% 40%

46%

32%

42%45%

41% 40%42%

40%

2009

31%

25%23%

32%

20%

26%27%30%

17%17%

11%13%

10%

20%

0%Sponsor

someone'sti i ti

my United Way Workplacecharity drives

Monthly/Regulargiving

Asked bystranger

Phone request via Onlinewebsite

TV/Radioprogram

n/a n/an/a n/a


participation

Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined householdsNote: Workplace charity drives and Via Online Website were added to the survey in 2009

MECHANISMS OF GIVING: FUNDRAISERS

Given the effectiveness of fundraising in Hawaii, the following are some noted differencesbased on key demographics:• Kauai residents (82%) were more likely to support fundraisers in 2009, as compared to

Big Island residents (69%) --- with Maui County (73%) and Oahu (72%) falling in between;• Support of fundraising increases directly with household size, perhaps suggesting that

those with children relate better to the cause;those with children relate better to the cause;• Hawaiian (81%) and Japanese (79%) households were more likely to support fundraising

efforts, versus Filipino (60%) or Caucasian (64%) households;• Those between the ages of 45 to 54 years (82%) or between 25 to 34 years (77%) were

more likely than those 65+ years of age (64%) to support fundraisers;• Not surprisingly, lifetime residents (75%) were more likely to support fundraisers than

were relatively newer residents who have lived in Hawaii for 5 years or less (57%); and• Those from upper-income households of $75 000+ (82%) or households between $50 000


Those from upper income households of $75,000+ (82%) or households between $50,000to $75,000 (77%) were more likely than those from households of less than $25,000(60%) to support fundraising efforts.

MECHANISMS OF GIVING: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

There were several other notable differences when comparing mechanisms of givingagainst age segments:

Direct mail was significantly more effective among older segments between 55 to 64• Direct mail was significantly more effective among older segments between 55 to 64years (56%) and 65+ years (55%), as compared to younger segments between 18 to24 years (22%) or between 25 to 34 years (25%);

• Those between 25 to 34 years (51%) or between 45 to 54 years (50%) were morelikely to contribute because they were asked by an acquaintance than were those 65+years of age (29%);

• Those between 35 to 44 years (53%) or between 45 to 54 years (52%) were morelikely to give to sponsor someone’s participation in a charitable event than were those65+ years of age (22%);

• Those between the ages of 45 to 54 years (54%) were significantly more likely thanthose 65+ years of age (16%) or those between 18 to 24 years (35%) to supportworkplace charity drives; andp y ;

• There were no significant differences by age for offerings, tithes, or gifts to a churchor temple or dropping money into a charitable organization’s contribution cup or box.


MOTIVATIONS FOR GIVING

Those surveyed were read a list of potential motivations for giving and asked whethereach one was a “big” reason for giving, a “small” reason for giving, “not” a reason forgiving, or “something their household is opposed to”. The following list of motivationswas read to each respondent (with the order of presentation rotated, in order to avoidpositional bias):

To help ease other people’s pain and suffering; Because we were asked by someone we knew; Because we felt it was part of our community responsibility; Because we felt it was part of our community responsibility; Because it made us feel good inside; As a way of honoring or commemorating someone we care about; Because we felt our contribution would help someone we care about; B th ff i i l ift i l b hi b fit f th i d Because they were offering a special gift, or some special membership benefits, for their donors; Out of guilt; So that our name, or the name of a loved one, would be printed in a list of contributors, or on a

plaque, or elsewhere; S ld l i it t t So we could claim it on our tax return; Because we felt it was part of our responsibility before God; Because of our relationship or involvement with a particular organization or cause; Because we felt that particular organization was best suited to work for the cause we believe in;


Because it was presented as an emergency or urgent situation; and Because, in tough economic times, giving to charities is even more important.

Figure 45: Common Reasons For Giving – Top Responses (2009)

80%

83%

53%

62%

27%

21%

Ease pain &suffering

Best suitedorganization for job

Those who gave in the past yeardid so because they felt that aparticular organization was bestsuited to work for their cause

80%

73%42%

50%

31%

30%

Community

Feel good inside

suited to work for their cause,hope to ease the pain andsuffering of others, because itmakes them feel good inside,because they felt it was part of

73%

73%48%

42%

25%

31%

Help a loved one

responsibility

because they felt it was part oftheir community responsibility,and because they felt that theircontribution would help someonethey care about

67%

64%35%

43%

29%

24%

More important intough times

Involved withorganization

they care about.

Top motivations for giving areshown in Figure 45, with all otherresponses shown in Figure 46 on

53%36% 17%

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Responsibility toGod


responses shown in Figure 46 onthe following page.


Big Reason Small Reason Opposed

Figure 46: Common Reasons For Giving – Other Responses (2009)

27%

22%

21%

29%

Honor a loved one

Asked byacquaintance 51%

48%

16%

27%

23%

21%

Emergency situation

48%

39%

In contrast, giving out of guilt; tohave their name printed on a listof contributors, on a plaque, orelsewhere; and to receive a

10% 29%

4% 16%Special gift/benefits

To claim on tax return 39%

20%

elsewhere; and to receive aspecial gift or membershipbenefits were identified aslesser motivations for charitablegiving

3% 9%Name included on a

list 12%

giving.

1% 9%Out of guilt


10%

10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%




62%

Figure 47: “Big Reasons For Giving – Top Responses (2009)

When comparing the proportionof respondents identifying “big”reasons for giving to charity,

69%

68%

69%

53%

62%

Ease pain &suffering

Best suitedorganization for job

the top four mentioned “big”reasons remained the samesince the prior measure ---particular organization was best 67%

69%

63%

48%

50%Feel good inside

suffering

suited to work for the cause webelieve in, to help ease otherpeople’s pain and suffering,made us feel good inside, and

62%

46%

61%

43%

48%

Involved withorganization

Help a loved one

felt our contribution would helpsomeone we care about.

The top responses are shown 53%

43%

49%42%Community

responsibility

organization

in Figure 47 to the right, withthe remaining reasons shownin Figure 48 on the followingpage.

48%45%

35%

36%

More important intough times

Responsibilitybefore God 2009

2001

1998n/a


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined households 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

tough times 1998n/a

Figure 48: “Big” Reasons For Giving – Other Responses (2009)

22%

27%Honor a loved one

16%Emergency situation

Asked by acquaintance

4%

10%To claim on tax return

3%

4%

Name included on a list

Special gift/benefits

2009

1%Out of guilt

2009

2001

1998


Base: n=808 Hawaii tax-defined householdsNote: Tracking data for 1998 and 2001 was not provided

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

A new question in 2009 addressed reasons for discontinuing giving to an organization. Overall, 3in 10 respondents (30%) indicated that their household has stopped giving to a charitableorganization in the past few years When asked why they stopped giving the most commonlyorganization in the past few years. When asked why they stopped giving, the most commonlycited reasons were because the organization asked for contributions too often (35%), they decidedto support other causes (29%), and because they did not have money to donate (28%).

Figure 49: Stopped Giving To Organization In Past Few Years and Why (2009)

29%

35%

Decided to support other causes

They ask for contributions too often

Q: Why did you stop giving?Q: In the past few years, have

you stopped giving to a charitable organization?

Don't Know7%

17%

19%

28%

No longer felt personal connection

Mismanaged their funds

Ran out of money to donate

No63%

Yes30% 5%

6%

10%

14%

Never said 'thank you'

Their purpose no longer important

They did not do what mission said

Mislead the public


63% 30%

7%

2%

2%

5%

Other

More support for local charities

Don't trust them

y


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Base: n=244 respondents who indicated that they stopped giving to an organization

Figure 50: Seasonal Patterns of Charitable Giving (2009)

Year-end11%Mid-year

5%Year start

5%

TIMING OF CHARITABLE GIVING

A large majority of donors indicated

5%

that they have no real pattern when itcomes to giving to charitableorganizations. Four in 5 respondentssaid that they give throughout the yearor that they have no real pattern(79%). A small number of householdsindicated that they give primarily at thebeginning of the tax year (5%) or inthe middle of the year (5%), while 1 in10 reportedly give at year-end aroundthe holidays (11%).

Throughout year/

No pattern79%


Base: n=753 respondents who answeredThose who responded “don’t know” or who refused to answer were removed

79%

The proportion of donors who reported some type of pattern regarding their charitable givinghas declined somewhat since the previous tracking in 2001.

Figure 51: Timing of Charitable Giving (Tracking)

100%

71% 70%

79%80%

90%1998

2001

2009

50%

60%

70%

14% 14%20%

30%

40%

5%10%

14%7% 9%

14%

5% 5%11%

0%

10%

20%

Throughout year/No Start of year Mid Year End of Year


Throughout year/Nopattern

Start of year Mid-Year End of Year

Base: 2009 (753)

Figure 52: Anticipated Giving in Next 12 Months (2009)

ANNUAL TRENDSMore in Next 12

Less in Next 12 Months

22%

Based on current estimates,two- thirds of those donorssurveyed expect their levels ofh it bl i i t i th

Don't Know5%

Months8%

22%

charitable giving to remain thesame (64%) in the next 12months. It should be noted,however, that the proportion ofh h ld ti t ihouseholds expecting to giveless (22%) than they did thispast 12 months outnumberedthe proportion of households

ti t i (8%) bexpecting to give more (8%) bynearly a 3:1 ratio.

Same



Same64%

A large majority of those who expect to give less (22%) to charity in the next 12 months giveto Human Services (81%) and Health (65%) organizations.( ) ( ) g

Organizations garnering the strongest support among those who plan to give more (8%) tocharity in the next 12 months include Human Services (67%), Health (58%), and Religious(50%) organizations.

Figure 53: Type of Organization By Anticipated Giving (2009)

More Less Same Don't KnowAnticipated Giving In Next 12 Months

Type of Organization More Less Same Don t KnowHuman Services 67% 81% 77% 19%Health 58% 65% 59% 7%Religious Spiritual 50% 40% 38% 14%

Type of Organization

Religious, Spiritual 50% 40% 38% 14%Youth Development 33% 34% 28% 0%Education 20% 30% 21% 7%Environment 20% 18% 14% 0%Environment 20% 18% 14% 0%Arts, Culture 11% 10% 9% 0%Adult Recreation 0% 8% 9% 0%Public Benefit 2% 10% 7% 2%


Public Benefit 2% 10% 7% 2%BASE (66) (181) (519) (42)

ANTICIPATED GIVING IN NEXT 12 MONTHS: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

The following were noted differences in anticipated giving in the next 12 months based onkey demographics:

• Kauai residents (18%) were more likely than Maui County (5%) and Oahu (8%)( ) y y ( ) ( )residents to say that they expect to give more in the next 12 months;

• In fact, a relatively greater proportion of Maui County residents (26%) than residents ofother counties indicated that they anticipate giving less in the next 12 months;

• Caucasian households were more likely than other households to estimate giving less• Caucasian households were more likely than other households to estimate giving lessin the next 12 months; and

• Those from two-person (27%) or three-person (27%) households anticipate having tocut back and give less to charity in the next 12 months, versus those from four+person households (17%)person households (17%).


FUTURE PLANNING

Overall, 11% of those respondents surveyed indicated that either they, or other householdmembers, had plans to leave money or other assets to charity in their will or estate plans.Nearly three-fourths of those surveyed said that they had no plans (73%) at this time toleave money or other assets to charity, with the remaining percentage unsure.

Figure 54: Estate Planning (2009)Don't Know

16%

Yes11%

No73%



73%

ESTATE PLANNING: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

The following were noted differences in terms of those who plan on leaving money orother assets to charity in their will or estate plans, based on key demographics:

• A significantly greater proportion of those who currently volunteer time to charitable(15%) i di t d th t th l l i th t t h itcauses (15%) indicated that they plan on leaving money or other assets to charity, as

compared to those who do not currently volunteer (8%);

• Those between the ages of 55 and 64 years (16%), between 18 and 24 years (15%),and between 35 to 44 years (14%) were the most likely to indicate plans to leavey ( ) y pmoney or other assets to charity, while those between the ages of 25 to 34 years (8%)and 65+ years (9%) were the least likely; and

• Those practicing other Christian religions besides Catholics and Protestants (13%)were most likely to indicate plans to leave money or other assets to charity whilewere most likely to indicate plans to leave money or other assets to charity, whilethose of Catholic denomination (7%) were the least likely.


SECONDARY RESEARCH ONLINE

O ll f th f th d t f h h ldOverall, one-fourth of those respondents from householdsmaking a charitable donation in 2009 indicated that theywent to an organization’s website to get information to helpthem make their decision on whether or not to give.

Figure 55: Gone To Website To Research (2009)

Yes, Have gone to b it f

Don't know1%

website for information

24%

No, Have not goneto website

75%



75%

GONE TO WEBSITE TO RESEARCH: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

Th f ll i t d diff i t f th h id th t th h tThe following were noted differences in terms of those who said that they have gone to anorganization’s website to get information to help them make a decision about giving,based on key demographics:

• Maui County residents (16%) were significantly less likely than Kauai (29%), Big IslandMaui County residents (16%) were significantly less likely than Kauai (29%), Big Island(25%), and Oahu (24%) residents to have visited an organization’s website to helpmake a decision in the past couple years;

• A significantly greater proportion of those who currently volunteer time to charitablecauses (34%) indicated that they have gone to an organization’s website ascauses (34%) indicated that they have gone to an organization s website, ascompared to those who do not currently volunteer (14%);

• Caucasian heads of household (26%) were more likely than Filipino (13%), Hawaiian(17%), or Japanese (19%) heads to have visited an organization’s website, althoughthose of other ethnic backgrounds (35%) were the most likely overall;those of other ethnic backgrounds (35%) were the most likely overall;

• Those 65+ years of age (10%) were significantly less likely than all other segments tohave visited an organization’s website, while those between 18 and 24 years (38%)and those between the ages of 25 to 34 years (31%) were the most likely;

• A significantly greater proportion of those from households with annual income of morethan $75,000 (30%) or between $50,000 and $75,000 (26%) visited an organization’swebsite, versus those from households of less than $25,000 (13%); and

• A significantly greater proportion of females (26%) than males (19%) said that they


g y g p p ( ) ( ) yvisited an organization’s website in the past couple years to help make an informeddecision about giving.

On average, those have gone to a website in the past couple years to research anorganization ($2,260) gave twice as much to charity than did those who did not do anyg ($ , ) g y ysecondary research online ($1,135).

Figure 56: Giving By Website Research (2009)$2,500 100%

$2,260

76%

$2,000

$ ,

70%

80%

90%

$1,135

76%

$1 000

$1,500

40%

50%

60%

70%

24%$500

$1,000

20%

30%

40%

$0

Yes, Have gone to website No, Have not gone0%

10%


Base: Went to website to research organization (190); Have not gone to website to research organization (609)


RECIPIENTS OFRECIPIENTS OFCHARITABLE GIVING


Figure 57: Giving Locally (2009)

Nearly allwas local

69%

Most wasnot local

16%25% or

lGIVING TO LOCAL CHARITIES

Based on those households that giveto charitable causes, 7 in 10 donors(69%) d i di d h l

75% or more

26% to

less

(69%) surveyed indicated that nearlyall [defined as 75% or more] of theirhousehold’s charitable contributionswent to Hawaii organizations. On the

it d f th t i

Little less than half local

8%

Littl

51% to75%

26% to50%

opposite end of the spectrum, one infour donors (24%) indicated that amajority of their charitable donationswent to out-of-state organizations.

Little more than half was

local7%


Base: n=722 Hawaii residents who answered question

Figure 58: Giving Locally (Tracking)

The distribution of charitablegiving to local versus non-localcharities has been fairly

63%

70%69%70%

80%1998

2001

2009 charities has been fairlyconsistent over the course ofthe tracking.

50%

60%2009

30%

40%

7% 9%

18%

8% 8%14%

7% 8%

16%

10%

20%

7% % %7% %

0%

10%

Nearly all waslocal

Little more thanhalf was local

Little less thanhalf local

Most was notlocal


local half was local half local local

Base: (2009) n=722 Hawaii residents who answered question

Figure 59: Giving Locally By Resident Status (2009)

50%

60%

Part-Time Residents

Full-Time Residents

A majority of both full-time andpart-time residents indicatedthat they give primarily tolocally-based organizations

41%45%

40%

50%

locally-based organizations.

26%30%

7% 6%8% 9%8% 7% 8%

6%

17%

10%10%

20%

3%6% 6%

0%

Lessthan 10%

10% to25%

26% to50%

51% to75%

76% to90%

Over90%

Don'tKnow


Base: n=778 Hawaii tax-defined households who donated to charity; Full-time residents (743); Part-time residents (33)

than 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 90% Know

Not surprisingly, newer residents to the Islands --- those having lived here for 5 years orless and thus, less likely to have vested interests locally --- displayed greater tendenciesless and thus, less likely to have vested interests locally displayed greater tendenciesto contribute to out-of-state causes.

Figure 60: Giving Locally By Type of Resident (2009)60%

49%47%

44%50%

Lifetime More than 20 years6 to 20 years5 years or less

30%

40%

5 years or less

21%

12% 14%

19%17%

20%17%

14%11% 12%

20%

7% 6% 6% 6%10%

5%8%

5%8% 8%8%

2%

12%

5%

10% 11% 10%12%

0%

10%


Base: n=775 Hawaii tax-defined households who donated to charity; Lifetime (518); More than 20 years (122); 11 to 20 years (83); 1 to 5 years (52)

Less than 10% 10% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 90% Over 90% Don't Know

Japanese and Hawaiian households were more likely to say that a large majority of theircharitable giving in 2009 was to support local charities, while Filipino households were lesscharitable giving in 2009 was to support local charities, while Filipino households were lesslikely to indicate the same.

Figure 61: Giving Locally By Ethnicity (2009)60%

C i 54%

47%

52%

45%50%

CaucasianJapaneseFilipinoHawaiianOther

35%

24%30%

40%Other

9%11%

9% 10%12%

24%

9%

19%

9%10%

19%

14%

19%20%

9%7%

9%7%

5% 6% 5%7%

5%2%

4%6%

8%6%7%

9%

5% 6%9%

4% 5%

0%

10%

Less than 10% 10% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 90% Over 90% Don't Know


Base: Caucasian (270); Japanese (177); Filipino (79); Hawaiian (125); Other (144)

Less than 10% 10% to 25% 26% to 50% 51% to 75% 76% to 90% Over 90% Dont Know

SHARE OFSHARE OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS


TYPES OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

H i (77% 1 i f 2001) d h l h l d (61% d 5Human services (77%; up 1 point from 2001) and health-related causes (61%; down 5points) remained the top two recipients of charitable giving in Hawaii. Compared to the priormeasure in 2001, religious organizations (42%; up 11 points) and education (26%; up 4points) also remained in the top five recipients, with youth development (32%; up 22 points)di l i bli b fitdisplacing public benefit.

Figure 62: Top Five Recipients of Charitable Giving (Tracking)

76%77%

Human Services

43%

78%

66%

76%

61%Health

Human Services

37%

10%

31%

32%

42%

Y th D l t

Religious, Spiritual

21%

15%

22%

10%

26%Education

Youth Development200920011998


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


Environmental causes (18%; up 7 points) led the second tier of recipients of charitablegiving in Hawaii, followed by arts and culture (13%; up 4 points), adult recreation (12%; up 4g g , y ( ; p p ), ( ; ppoints), and public benefit (11%; down 3 points). [Note: The decline in public benefit maylikely be a result of post 9/11 donations in 2001.]

Figure 63: Additional Recipients of Charitable Giving (Tracking)

8%

9%

11%

13%

18%

C

Environment

2%

6%

8%

9%

12%Adult Recreation

Arts, Culture

7%14%

0%

11%Public Benefit

13%

1%

17%

5%

11%Other

Foundations 2009

2001

1998



13%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Figure 64: Organizations’ Share of Donations and Contributions (2009)

42%

9%

15%

53%

Human Services

Religious, Spiritual

Figure 64 to the right shows thepercentage of goods donationsand monetary contributionsreceived by each of the primary 23%

4%

42%

10%

14%

Health

Education

received by each of the primaryorganization types. Donations toReligious organizations areskewed heavily toward cash,while donations to Human 1%

3%

23%

2%

2%

Environment

Arts, Culture

while donations to HumanServices, Health, and YouthDevelopment skew heavilytoward goods.

1%

13%

1%

1%

2%

Public Benefit

Youth Development

3%

1%

0%

1%

Foundations

Adult Recreation

Public Benefit

Percent of contributions ($)



0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

FoundationsPercent of donations (goods)

Figure 65: Organizations’ Share of Goods Donated (2009)g g ( )

Public Benefit

Adult Recreation

3%

Arts, Culture3% Religious,

Spiritual9%

Education4%

Figure 65 to the right shows thecategory share of total goodsdonated.

Youth Development

13%

1%Environment

1%Other3%

Relative to goods donations,Human Services organizations(42%) account for the largestshare of goods donated, followed

3%

share of goods donated, followedby Health (23%) and YouthDevelopment organizations (13%).

Healthea t23%Human

Services42%



Figure 66: Share of Goods (Tracking)

28%42%

H S iSHARE OF GOODS DONATED

The share of donated goods given toHuman Services organizations (42%; up

22%

43%

4%

25%

28%

13%

23%

Youth

Health

Human Services

g ( ; p14 points) increased significantly in2009. Share of goods given to Healthorganizations (23%; down 2 points)ranked second overall, followed by

12%

5%

8%

11%

4%

4%

9%

Ed ti

Religious,Spiritual

Development

, yshare given to Youth Developmentorganizations (13%; up 9 points).

2%

6%

3%

3%

8%

3%

3%

Ad lt R ti

Arts, Culture

Education

3%

1%

5%

4%

3%

1%

1%

P bli B fi

Environment

Adult Recreation

0%

2%

6%

2%

5%

3%

0%

Oth

Foundations

Public Benefit

20092001



2%6%

%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other1998

Figure 67: Organizations’ Share of Monetary Donations (2009)

Education14%

Youth Development

2%Public Benefit

Environment2% Health

10%

Arts, Culture2%

Figure 67 to the left shows thecategory share of all monetarycontributions made in 2009.

14%Public Benefit1%

Adult Recreation

1%Other

Religious organizations (53%)account for a slight majority of allmonetary donations made tocharity, far outdistancing

Other1%

y, gmonetary share for HumanServices organizations (15%),Education (14%), and Healthorganizations (10%).

Human Services

15%

g ( )Religious, Spiritual

53%



Figure 68: Share of Monetary Donations (Tracking)53%

31%

41%

31%

33%

14%

15%

53%

Human Services

Religious, SpiritualSHARE OF CASH DONATIONS

The share of monetarycontributions made to Religiousorganizations (53%; up 20 points)

7%

11%

2%

18%

5%

2%

10%

14%

Health

Educationorganizations (53%; up 20 points)increased significantly in 2009.Share of cash donations made toHuman Services (15%; down 16points) ranked second overall

1%

2%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

Youth

Environment

Arts, Culturepoints) ranked second overall,followed by that made toEducation (14%; up 9 points) andHealth (10%; down 8 points).

2%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

Adult Recreation

Public Benefit

Development

0%

1%

4%

1%

1%

1%

0%

Other

Foundations

Adult Recreation

2009

2001



2%4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other1998

Figure 69: Average Total Donation By Category (2009)

Avg Given By Category (Cash plus Goods)

% of HH's Giving Total

As shown to the left in Figure69 average total donations

Human Services 77% $303Health 61% $184R li i S i i l 42% $ 38

( p ) g

69, average total donations(cash plus goods) werehighest for religious/spiritualorganizations ($538); wellahead of donations made to

Religious, Spiritual 42% $538Youth Development 32% $64Education 26% $147

Human Services ($303),Health ($184), or Education($147).

$Environment 18% $18Arts, Culture 13% $29Adult Recreation 12% $20Public Benefit 11% $13Other 11% $19



Other 11% $19

As noted earlier in Figure 18, those heads of household falling into the “other” ethnicitycategory gave the most, on average, to charity in the past year. As shown below in Figurecategory gave the most, on average, to charity in the past year. As shown below in Figure70, this was driven primarily by donations to Religious organizations.

Figure 70: Organizations Given To By Ethnicity (2009)

Caucasian Japanese Filipino Hawaiian OtherTotal Total Total Total Total

Arts, Culture $70 $11 $7 $3 $12Ed ti $270 $37 $30 $67 $198

Avg Given By Category (Cash plus Goods)

Education $270 $37 $30 $67 $198Environment $35 $12 $6 $3 $14Health $217 $113 $120 $225 $220Human Services $371 $203 $106 $358 $376Human Services $371 $203 $106 $358 $376Public Benefit $24 $5 $7 $13 $6Adult Recreation $8 $10 $4 $80 $13Religious, Spiritual $467 $479 $356 $472 $953

Base: Caucasian (270); Japanese (177); Filipino (79); Hawaiian (125); Other (144)

g pYouth Development $59 $51 $72 $112 $47Other $15 $5 $13 $34 $37


Note: Those who refused to specify their ethnicity were removed.In 2009, Religious donations made by “Other” included (7) total donations of $5,000 or more --- (1) Hispanic - $5,000; (2) Chinese - $6,000; (1) Mixed - $10,000; (1) Chinese - $12,300; (1) African-American - $14,000; and (1) Mixed - $20,000

Figure 71: Giving To Religious vs.Secular Organizations (2009)g ( )

Religious & Non-Religious

38%

Religious Only3%

RELIGIOUS vs. SECULAR GIVING

Overall, only 3% of Hawaii’s contributinghouseholds give solely to religious or

38%

spiritual organizations. Three in 5indicated that they give exclusively tonon-religious organizations only (59%),while just under 2 in 5 reportedly donateto both religious and non-religiouscauses (38%).

Non-Religious Only59%


Base: n=730 Hawaii tax-defined households who specified their recipient organizationsThose who did not specify their recipient organizations were removed.

Compared to the previous measure in 2001, slightly more households reportedly donate toboth religious and non-religious causes (38%; up 11 points), with a corresponding decline ing g ( ; p p ), p gthe proportion of households who give exclusively to non-religious organizations (59%; down9 points).

Figure 72: Giving To Religious vs. Secular Organizations (Tracking)

68%

59%Non-Religious Only

61%

27%

38%Religious & Non-

34%

27%

3%

Religious

2009

5%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Religious Only 2001

1998


Base: n=730 Hawaii tax-defined households who specified their recipient organizationsThose who did not specify their recipient organizations were removed.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

VOLUNTEER PROFILESVOLUNTEER PROFILES


VOLUNTEERS

When asked if they have volunteered any time to charity inWhen asked if they have volunteered any time to charity inthe past 12 months, just under half (46%) of thoserespondents surveyed indicated that they did volunteer.This was virtually the same as that reported in 2001 (47%).

Q: Volunteered time to charityin past 12 months?

No54%54%

Yes



46%

Among those who volunteered, one-fourth did so on a weekly or bi-weekly basis (25%;) fdown 6 points since 2001), with only a slight increase when asked if they did so on a

monthly or bi-monthly basis (27%; up 3 points). A majority of respondents, nearly three-fourths (73%; up 6 points), indicated that they volunteer on an occasional basis.

Figure 73: Volunteering (2009)Figure 73: Volunteering (2009)

100%Q: Volunteered time to charityin past 12 months?

Q: Any organizations or causes you volunteered foron a basis in past 12 months?

No54% 73%

60%

70%

80%

90%in past 12 months? on a ______ basis in past 12 months?

Yes

25% 27%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Yes46%

0%

10%

20%

Weekly/Bi-Weekly Monthly/Bi-Monthly Occasional


Base: n=375 volunteers

Overall, nearly 9 in 10 volunteers surveyed anticipated volunteering more often (16%) orthe same amount of time (72%) in 2010 as they did in the past year. One in 10 expect that( ) y p y ptheir household will volunteer less in the next 12 months than they did in the past year.

Figure 74: Anticipated Volunteering (2009)

Don't KnowQ: Do you think your

household’s volunteerism for the next 12 months will be…

More16%

Don t Know1%

Less11%11%

Same72%


Base: n=375 Hawaii tax-defined households who indicated that they volunteer

PROFILE OF VOLUNTEERS

Th ti f d t h i di t d th t th h l t d ti t h it iThe proportion of respondents who indicated that they have volunteered time to charity inthe past 12 months was significantly lower on Oahu (43%) as compared to Maui County(54%), Kauai (54%), and Hawaii (53%). The level of volunteerism was fairly consistentacross the Neighbor Islands.

Figure 75: Volunteering By Island (2009)

Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months?70%

% Yes

43%

53% 54%54%*

40%

50%

60%

% Yes

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

Oahu Maui County Hawaii Kauai


Base: Tax-defined households – Oahu (406); Maui County (147); Hawaii (186); Kauai (73) Note: *Due to small sample sizes on Molokai and Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai have been combined into Maui County

Lifetime residents are the least likely to have volunteeredtime in the past 12 months, although this is likely related withp , g yage (as shown later in this report). Level of volunteerism wasfairly equal across other segments tested --- 5 years or less(53%), between 6 to 20 years (52%), and more than 20 yearsbut not lifetime residency (55%).y ( )

Figure 76: Volunteering By Length of Residency (2009)

Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months? % Yes70%

53% 52% 55%

43%50%

60%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

20%


Up to 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years, notlifetime

Lifetime resident

Base: Up to 5 years (55); 6 to 20 years (87); More than 20 years (126); Lifetime (538)

Younger residents between 18 to 24 years of age (59%), those between 45 to 54 years(57%) d th b t 35 t 44 (53%) th t lik l t h l t d(57%), and those between 35 to 44 years (53%) were the most likely to have volunteeredtime to charity in the past 12 months. In comparison, those 65+ years of age (34%) werefar less likely than others to have indicated likewise.

Figure 77: Volunteering By Age (2009)Figure 77: Volunteering By Age (2009)

Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months?

59% 57%

70%

% Y59%

45%

53%57%

47%

40%

50%

60% % Yes

34%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%


Base: 18 to 24 (39); 25 to 34 (179); 35 to 44 (98); 45 to 54 (134); 55 to 64 (167); 65+ (182)

18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 & over

The likelihood to volunteer increases directly with level ofeducation A relatively greater proportion of those with someeducation. A relatively greater proportion of those with somegraduate work or a graduate degree (60%) volunteered time toa charitable cause in the past 12 months, as compared to thosewith college degrees (52%), some college (45%), high schooldiplomas (28%) and less than high school backgrounds (7%)diplomas (28%), and less than high school backgrounds (7%).

Figure 78: Volunteering By Level of Education (2009)Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months?

% Y70%

% Yes

45%52%

60%

50%

60%

28%

20%

30%

40%

7%

0%

10%

20%


Base: n=794 Tax-defined households; Less than high school (15); High school grad (138); Some college (240); College grad (235); Graduate work or degree (166). Those who did not answer for level of education were removed.

Less than high school High school grad Some college College grad Graduate work or degree

Those from upper-income households of more than $75,000 (56%) were the most likely tohave volunteered in the past 12 months A comparable proportion of those fromhave volunteered in the past 12 months. A comparable proportion of those fromhouseholds between $50,000 to $75,000 (44%) and those between $25,000 and $50,000(44%) reportedly volunteered, while those from lower-income households of less than$25,000 (31%) were the least likely to have volunteered.

Figure 79: Volunteering By Household Income (2009)Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months?

% Yes70%

% Yes

44% 44%

56%

40%

50%

60%

31%

20%

30%

40%

0%

10%

Less than $25 000 $25 000 to $50 000 $50 000 to $75 000 More than $75 000


Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $75,000 More than $75,000Base: Less than $25,000 (104); $25,000 to $50,000 (176); $50,000 to $75,000 (135); More than $75,000 (282)Those who refused to categorize their household income were removed.

Households affiliated with a Christian denominations other than Catholic or Protestant(55%) were the most likely to volunteer followed by those affiliated with Non Christian(55%) were the most likely to volunteer, followed by those affiliated with Non-Christianbeliefs (47%). Those with no clear religious affiliation (38%) were the least likely tovolunteer.

Figure 80: Volunteering By Religious Affiliation (2009)Figure 80: Volunteering By Religious Affiliation (2009)

Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months?

% Y55%60%

70%

% Yes

41%44%

55%

47%

38%40%

50%

20%

30%

0%

10%

Catholic Protestant Other-Christian Other-Non- None or DK


Base: n=808 Tax-defined households; Catholic (162); Protestant (68); Other Christian (301); Other Non-Christian (94); None (183)

Catholic Protestant Other Christian Other NonChristian

None or DK

Relatively more females (49%) than males (42%) indicated that they volunteered time to acharitable cause in the past 12 months.p

Figure 81: Volunteering By Gender (2009)Q: Volunteered time to charity in past 12 months?

70%% Yes

49%50%

60%

42%40%

50%

20%

30%

0%

10%


Male Female

Base: n=808 Tax-defined households; Females (492), Males (316)

As shown below in Figure 82, volunteering households gave significantly more to charitythan did non-volunteering households in 2009. [Note: This was also a consistent findingin previous tracking.] In 2009, volunteering households contributed an average of$1,967 to charities in cash and/or goods, more than two times that reported for non-volunteering households ($916)

Figure 82: Charitable Giving Among Volunteers and Non-Volunteers (2009)

Volunteering StatusMonetary

ContributionAverage Goods

DonationAverage Overall

Giving

Volunteering Household $1,398 $569 $1,967Non Volunteering Household $654 $262 $916Non-Volunteering Household $654 $262 $916


Base: n=808 Tax-defined households; n=375 Volunteers, n=433 Non-Volunteers

APPENDIXAPPENDIXDETAILED FINDINGS

SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

Ward Research, Inc. • 828 Fort Street, Suite 210 • Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 • Phone: (808) 522-5123 • Fax: (808) 522-5127

A Report on Charitable Giving in Hawaii

Documents

Transcript of A Report on Charitable Giving in Hawaii