Generational Differences in Charitable Giving

and in Motivations for Giving

A Report Prepared for

May 2008

Researched and written at

 Contents
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2
Question or Issue ................................................................................................................... 2
Key Findings .......................................................................................................................... 2
Data ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Generational differences in giving .......................................................................................... 3
Finding: Generation and Motivations for Giving ..................................................................... 5
Finding: Income and Motivations for Giving ........................................................................... 6
Finding: Race and Motivations for Giving............................................................................... 6
Finding: Education and Motivations for Giving....................................................................... 6
Finding: Region of the Country and Motivations for Giving .................................................... 7
Finding: Religious Attendance and Motivations for Giving ..................................................... 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 9

Overview of the Study...............................................................................................................10

Data ......................................................................................................................................10
Definitions of Generations.....................................................................................................10

Giving by Generation ................................................................................................................11

Motivations ...............................................................................................................................21
Control Variables...................................................................................................................22
Analytical methods used and how to interpret results...........................................................26

Results for Overall, Secular and Religious Giving .....................................................................28

Further Results Other than Generational Differences ............................................................28
Potential Implications for the Findings About Giving.............................................................29

Motivations for Giving ...............................................................................................................30

Implications for the single most important motivation...........................................................31

Conclusion................................................................................................................................33

Citations ...................................................................................................................................38

Appendix A: Motivations identified by people in each generation.............................................39

Appendix B : Knowledge Networks ..........................................................................................41

Study of giving and generations, p. 1 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Summary
Question or Issue
This paper sets out to better understand charitable giving. In general, we hope to distinguish
characteristics of future donors to assist organizations in framing appropriate fundraising
messages. More specifically, we are interested in whether differences in giving exist due to
age, and we have grouped respondents into the following standard generational categories:

Great: Born before 1929 (used in some analyses here but not all)
Silent: Born 1929 to 1945
Boomer: Born 1946 to 1963
X: Born 1964 to 1981
Millennial: Born since 1981

Further, we investigate what underlying motivations lead people to give to charitable

organizations, and whether those motivations vary by generational cohort. By understanding
what characterizes groups of potential donors and what motivates those donors to give,
fundraising organizations can attempt to maximize giving by reaching out to specific
individuals with more appropriate messages.

Key Findings
There are some generational difference in giving, mostly between the “Silent” and Great
generations and Boomer and later generations.

Giving differs mostly by factors other than generation – educational attainment, frequency of
religious attendance and income. To the extent that these differ by generation, they explain the
observed difference in giving by people of different generations.

Motivations do vary by income, race, education, region of the country and religious attendance
but vary little by generation after controls for these other factors.

Millennial donors are most likely to be motivated by a desire to make the world a better place.
They give consistent with their income, education level, frequency of religious attendance and
marital status.

Data
The data used in this analysis were generated through a web-facilitated survey fielded by
Knowledge Networks in March 2007. With survey responses from more than 10,000 individuals
in a nationally representative sample, we were able to use statistical techniques to find
differences in giving between generations and explore differences in giving that might be
associated with different motivations identified for charitable donation. Knowledge Networks
recruits households for its samples by telephone and provides the needed equipment for a
household to participate. Samples from Knowledge Networks are designed to represent the
entire U.S. population, not just routine users of the Internet.1

1
More information about Knowledge Networks is included in Appendix B.

Study of giving and generations, p. 2 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
The first level of analysis is to describe the actual giving differences observed by generation,
both participation (percent who give) and average amounts given. The second level of analysis
is to use statistical techniques to isolate the effect of generational differences and other
differences and the impact on giving.

Generational differences in giving

Before using statistical methods of controls, there are observable differences in charitable
giving that are linked to age or generation. In general, younger adults are less likely to give, and
when they do give, they give less on average than older adults. One of the purposes of this
paper was to explore potential explanations for these observed differences.

Participation Rates in Giving by Generation

Religious Secular Total

86.6 87.8 87.8

84.1
80.0 79.0 79.2 78.8
76.9
74.4
72.0

57.1

45.1 46.7
41.5

Millennial Generation X Boomers Silent Great

The data available to examine why a lower percentage of younger donors contribute at all is
limited to factors such as income, education level, frequency of religious attendance, marital
status, and number and ages of children in the household. When examining the propensity to
give at all, after controlling for (holding constant) these other variables:

• Members of the Silent and Great generations are statistically significantly more likely to
give to religious purposes than members of the Boomer generation

• The younger generations (Gen X and Millennials) are not different from the Boomers in
their propensity to give for religious causes, after controlling for other variables. Both
are less likely than Silent and Great generations to give for religious purposes.

For secular giving, after controls:

Study of giving and generations, p. 3 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • The Silent generation is more likely than the Boomer generation with statistical
significance, to give for secular causes.

• That is the only statistically significant difference in generational propensity to give for
secular causes. That is, Gen X, and Millennials plus the Great generation are as likely as
Boomers to give for secular causes.

The probability of giving varied by generation, with the Silent generation most likely to give for
religion and secular causes and the Great generation more likely to give to religion than
younger generations.

The amount given does vary by generation, especially for religious giving – and therefore for
total giving, which is the sum of religious and secular giving.

Average gift totals by type of recipient and by generation, 2006

Religion Secular Total giving

$1,971 $1,985 $2,001

$1,882
$1,799
$1,746
$1,625

$1,405
$1,279 $1,266

$966
$803
$674
$593 $583

Millennial X Boomer Silent Great

Secular giving totals varied somewhat by generation, but seem to follow a pattern linked with
income differences rather than generation differences.

After controls, generation alone did not make a difference in the amount donors contributed to
religion or to secular causes. The differences observed in contribution amounts among donors
were associated with differences in income, education and religious attendance.

Study of giving and generations, p. 4 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
When examining the amount contributed by donor households, there are no generational
differences in total giving after controls for income, marital status, race, education, region of
the country, religious attendance and age of youngest child in household.

Finding: Generation and Motivations for Giving

The survey asked only donors about their motivations for charitable giving. Five motivations for
charitable giving stand out as being most important for donors in all generations:

• Providing for the basic needs of the very poor

• Desire to make my community a better place to live
• Giving the poor a way to help themselves
• Desire to make the world a better place to live
• Those with more have a responsibility to help those with less

Percentage selecting each of the top five motivations, by generation

Donors could select three - these are the highest frequency motivations overall

Millennials X Boomers Silent Great Overall

52.3

46.7
44.9 44.5
43.9
43
41.3
39.439.6 39.4 38.6
36.736.7 36.7 37.3
35.9 35.4
34.3 34.5 34.3 33.8
31.9

28.5 28.7
27.827.828.5 27.9
26.5

21.7

Basic needs of poor Make community better Give poor a way to help Make world better Responsibility to help those
themselves with less

Study of giving and generations, p. 5 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
After controls for income, frequency of religious attendance, education and so on, we find only
a few statistically significant differences across generations regarding why donors are
motivated to give:

• The Millennial generation is more likely to give in order to make the world a better
place and less likely to give in order to decide how their money is spent.

• The Silent generation is more likely to give to charities in order to provide funding
where the government does not (which is not among the top five overall).

Finding: Income and Motivations for Giving

As we expected, total giving increases with income. Of particular interest are two findings
about motivations for giving, after controls:

• Respondents in the two lowest income categories (those making less than $49,999
per year) are more likely than higher income households to give in order to help the
poor help themselves.

• The three highest income groups (those above $125,000 per year) are more likely to
say they give from a sense of responsibility to help others with less.

Finding: Race and Motivations for Giving

In this dataset, African Americans were less likely to give at all—after controls for income,
education, marital status, religious attendance and so forth—than non-Hispanic whites. The
effect was associated with a lower likelihood of making contributions for secular causes; there
was no effect on religious giving.

Motivations selected for giving varied slightly by race, as well:

• African-American donors and Hispanic donors were more likely than non-Hispanic
white donors, after controls for all other variables, to say that they gave to help meet
people’s basic needs.

• Hispanic donors were more likely than non-Hispanic white donors to say that they gave
to help the poor help themselves.

Finding: Education and Motivations for Giving

The results follow what is expected from past studies and intuition. Specifically, charitable
giving increases as education increases. With regard to motivations for giving, after controls
and when compared with a high school education, having a college degree was associated
with:

• A greater likelihood of selecting as motivation the responsibility to help others

• A lower likelihood of giving to help meet the basic needs of the very poor

Study of giving and generations, p. 6 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • A lower likelihood of giving from a desire to control where one’s money goes instead of
having the government do it

These findings are from an analysis that uses controls for all other variables. Having some
college education, but not a college degree, was associated with being less likely to give to
help the poor help themselves, when compared with people with no college education (high
school degree or less).

Finding: Region of the Country and Motivations for Giving

When looking at motivations for giving after controls, compared with donors in the Northeast:

• Donors who live in the South are more likely to say they give to help the poor help
themselves

• People in the Midwest and the South were less likely to select “desire to make the
world a better place” as a motivation for giving

Finding: Religious Attendance and Motivations for Giving

Religious attendance is one of the important drivers of the probability than an individual will be
a donor to secular and to religious causes. It is also an important determinant of the amount of
charitable giving overall and of the amount of religious giving, but less important as a
determinant of the amount of secular giving, once the person gives to secular causes.
Consistent with other research, people who attend religious services at all, even as seldom as
once per year, are more likely than those who never attend to give to secular organizations.2

Motivations for giving vary somewhat by religions attendance.

• People who attend once a week or more often are less likely, before controls, than non-
attenders to select “make my community a better place” or “make the world a better
place.”

• Frequent attenders (once a week or more) are more like than non-attenders to say they
give to help meet the needs of the poor, to help the poor help themselves or because
those with more have a responsibility to help those with less.

• For those three motivations, infrequent attenders are LESS likely to select them than
non-attenders and than frequent attenders.

2
For information about studies of religious observance and giving, see the list in Bekkers and Wiepking,
2007, pg 5. at the Social Science Research Network,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1015507.

Study of giving and generations, p. 7 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Percentage selecting motivation, by frequency of religious attendance, 2006

Never A few times a year or less A few times a year Once or twice a month
Once a week More than once a week Total

39 39
37 38 37 37
36 36
35 35 35
34 34

30 30 30 30
29 29 29
28 27 28 28 28 27 28 28 28 27 28 28
26 26 26

Basic needs of poor Make community better Give poor a way to help Make world better Responsibility to help
themselves those with less

The graph above shows motivations for giving by religious attendance before using statistical
techniques to compare motivations after taking into account other factors such as income.
When looking at the probability of selecting given motivations After controls, attenders
selected different motivations than non-attenders with statistical significance.

After controls, religious attendance was most clearly linked with selecting as a motivation the
desire to make the community a better place to live, except in people who attend more than
once a week.

Among people who attend religious services more than once a week, when compared with
those who do not attend at all, there was a lower likelihood of selecting “desire to make the
community a better place” as a motivation.

Study of giving and generations, p. 8 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Introduction
Many studies have looked at charitable giving and found that age matters—older people are
more likely to give and give more than younger people, even after controls for income,
education, and marital status.3 Some have attributed differences in giving to different
motivations for giving. For example, people who were adolescents during the Great
Depression have a different view of charitable giving than do people who were adolescents
during the 1960s. In the first Giving & Volunteering in the U.S. (1986) conducted by the
organization INDEPENDENT SECTOR, researchers asked questions related to possible motivations
for giving. The most frequent choice was “charity is a worthy cause.” Since these early
investigations into motivations, the data available and the analysis techniques used have been
tested and refined. This work adds to the growing literature exploring differences in motivations
for giving, with a special emphasis on differences of motivations selected by people of different
generations.

Researchers have found generational differences in approaches to charity and giving

behaviors, even without specifically looking at motivations. According to Sargeant and
Woodliffe, members of the Baby Boomer generation often want to know exactly how their
donations will be used. Generation X worries about accountability and perceives that marketing
is too often targeted toward them (Tolgan, 1997). On the other hand, Generation Y tends to be
more cause-oriented, ambitious and empowered with a “passion for social justice and burning
desire to make a difference” (Johnson and Hanson 2006, and Huntley 2006).

Recent research has found that people born before 1940 (Pre-War) gave more in the early
1970s when they were 30 to 40 years old than people who are now 30 to 40 years old give
(Wilhelm et al, 2007). The difference appears to be related to the difference in frequency of
attendance at religious services.

What remains largely unexplored is the extent to which people of different age cohorts or
generations think about their giving and their stated or selected motivations for making
charitable contributions. This work addresses the question of donor motivations.

There are four main sections to this report:

• An overview, which includes definitions used for the generations and a comparison of
the number of respondents in the survey from each generation.

• A comparison of the giving of people by different generations, including participation

rates (percentage who give at all) and the average contributions they make to various
types of charities. This section includes a comparison of the share of giving from each
generation that goes for various purposes.

• An analysis, with tables of results, showing statistically significant differences in

motivations selected by generation, income, education level and other variables.

• A discussion of the possible implications of the findings for fundraising.

3
For a summary of studies about age and giving, see the list in Bekkers and Wiepking, 2007, page 10. It
is available from the Social Science Research Network,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1015507.

Study of giving and generations, p. 9 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Overview of the Study
These data used in this paper were generated in March 2007 through a web-facilitated survey
conducted by Knowledge Networks and represent a random sample of the United States
population. With more than 10,000 respondents (n=10,013), the dataset allows us to ask
questions about cohorts of people instead of simply the population as a whole. We used five
generations, ranging from the “Great” generation (born before 1929) through the “Millennial”
generation (born since 1981) and compared the charitable giving of members of each. Of
particular interest in this analysis is what motivates people to make charitable contributions.
More specifically, we explored different generations and the motiveations they report for
charitable giving.

Data
A self-administered, web-facilitated survey was delivered by Knowledge Networks to a
nationally representative selection from its KnoweldgePanel. The survey included questions
about total charitable giving, motivations for giving, and engagement in other activities (such as
helping to raise funds) for nonprofit organizations. Responses are available from 10,013
people. Weights were provided by Knowledge Networks, and data processing was at the
Center on Philanthropy.

Definitions of Generations
In this work, we explore giving by people categorized by generation. Definitions of generations
vary according to different scholars. We’ve adapted a system based upon the work of Mitchell
(2003), although he calls the generation from 1922 to 1945 the “Swing” generation. We revised
that slightly to start in 1929 and to call it the “Silent” generation. There are many other terms
and years of division one could use. We chose these as the most likely to be familiar to most
readers.

Great: Born before 1929 (used in some analyses here but not all)
Silent: Born 1929 to 1945
Boomer: Born 1946 to 1963
X: Born 1964 to 1981
Millennial: Born since 1981

Table 1 shows the number of respondents in the entire dataset by generation. With more than
10,000 respondents, the data provided through Knowledge Networks is one of the first
available datasets to have sufficient Great and Millennial generation members to compare and
contrast.

Table 1: Survey Respondents by Generation, n=9,802*

Generation Number Percentage

Millennial 855 8.5%
Gen X 3,403 34.0%
Boomer 3,666 36.6%
Silent 1,556 15.5%
Great 322 3.2%
* Some respondents did not provide an age and could not be incorporated into this analysis

Study of giving and generations, p. 10 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Giving by Generation
There are multiple ways to compare giving across groups of individuals. We present three
variations here:

• The percentage of individuals within each generation who give to a specific type of
charity (participation rate)

• The average amount contributed by donors to that type of charity (again, by generation)

• The combined result of the share of giving by people of that generation that goes to a
specific type of charity (percentage giving multiplied by the average per donor to that
type of recipient)

Several figures follow, each with text to explain the findings. In general, the participation rate in
giving declines as age declines. Younger people are less likely to give at all than older people.
The average gift amount reflects income, so the donors with the highest gift amounts are those
with the highest income. Those tend to be clustered in Generation X and the Boomer
generation.

Study of giving and generations, p. 11 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 1 shows the participation rate by generation in total giving, secular giving and religious
giving. The most noticeable difference is in the participation rates in giving (the percentage
who give to that type of cause) for religious giving. Secular and total giving occur with
somewhat lower frequency among younger generations when compared with Boomers and
older.

Figure 1
Participation Rates in Giving by Generation

Religious Secular Total

86.6 87.8 87.8

84.1
80.0 79.0 79.2 78.8
76.9
74.4
72.0

57.1

45.1 46.7
41.5

Millennial Generation X Boomers Silent Great

The participation rate in religious giving falls from a high of 72 percent among the Great
generation to a low of 41.5 percent among the Millennial generation. Each generation has a
lower participation rate in giving to religion than the generations that precede it, but the
sharpest drop (15 percentage points from 72 to 57) occurs between the Great and Silent
generations. The next largest drop (10 percentage points from 57 to 47) occurs between the
Silent and Boomer generations.

The participation rate in secular giving is roughly equal from Great through Boomer generations
at about 79 percent. It falls off slightly with Generation X, to about 77 percent, and drops
further with the Millennials to 74 percent. Many in this youngest generation have not yet
completed their education or training and have not begun to work full-time. A decline in this
group may not yet be of great concern. The drop in Generation X, however, might be.

Prior work (Wilhelm et al., 2007) compares the religious giving of the Boomer generation now
with the earlier generations at a comparable age 30 years ago. Boomers give less to religion
than the earlier generations did at a similar point in their lives, and the probable reason is less
frequent attendance at religious services.

Study of giving and generations, p. 12 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 2 shows average gift total, average total giving to religion and average total giving to
secular causes (all) by generation. All averages are based on donors to that type of charity.
Total giving is very comparable in this study for Gen X, Boomers and the Silent Generation. It is
lower for Millennials and the Great generation, likely due to income differences.

Figure 2

Average gift totals by type of recipient and by generation, 2006

Religion Secular Total giving

$1,971 $1,985 $2,001

$1,882
$1,799
$1,746
$1,625

$1,405
$1,279 $1,266

$966
$803
$674
$593 $583

Millennial X Boomer Silent Great

Study of giving and generations, p. 13 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 3 shows the average gift amounts in 2006 (an annual total) contributed by donors within
each generation to five specific types of charities. These gift amounts reflect contributions
made by individuals giving to that specific type of charity. Outlier amounts (more than three
standard deviations from the mean) are excluded in these averages.

The most noticeable difference is in the average contributions for religion, which vary by
generation, but seem to follow a pattern that is likely to be linked with income rather than age.
The secular subsectors here show four different trends:

• Rising with generation: Education, except for Millennials, where the average gift is
higher than for Gen X
• Falling with generation: Umbrella (younger donors giving more, on average)
• Rising with generation, then falling for Great: Arts
• Fairly even across generations: Health

Figure 3
Average gift amount (excluding outliers),
by generation by donor to type of recipient, five of ten types of recipients

Millennial X Boomer Silent Great

$1,882
$1,799

$1,625
$1,405

$1,266

$521
$478
$453

$401

$367
$337

$319

$305
$244
$234

$223

$204
$165
$161

$140

$130
$126

$110
$108

$94

Religion Education Umbrella Arts Health

• Religion charities are houses of worship, the governing bodies (synods, dioceses, etc.)
and ministries, including media ministries. As expected, the highest average comes
from the highest-earning generations: Boomers with an average donation of $1,882 and
Generation X at $1,799. The lowest contribution is from Great generation donors to
religion, at $1,266. In the mid-range are Silent generation donors to religion, with an
average contribution of $1,625; and Millennial generation donors to religion, with an
average gift of $1,405 in 2006.

Study of giving and generations, p. 14 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • Education includes K-12, four-year and two-year colleges, tutoring programs and
scholarship funds. The average donation rises from Boomers ($453), to Silent ($478)
and then Great generations ($521). Younger donors give less, with Gen X donors to
education averaging donations of $234, and Millennial donors to education giving an
average $337.

• Umbrella charities include any charity that serves a multiplicity of purposes, such as the
Salvation Army (which has a wide range of programs), the United Way or combined or
federated programs, commercially-sponsored, donor-advised funds, and other types of
charities that collect funds and allocate them to a wide range of recipients. Figure 2
shows that among the Millennial generation, the average contribution of $401 exceeds
that of members of the other generations, which falls between $367 for Boomers and
$161 for Great generation donors.

• Arts giving here shows a rise that more or less follows an increase in age. Millennial
donors to the arts give an average of $165. Generation X donors give a similar amount
(not statistically significantly different from Millennials) of $140. Boomers give more
(statistically significantly different) with an average of $223, and Silent generation arts
donors give an average of $305. The only drop is among the Great generation, with an
average arts gift of $204. Prior work (Yoshioka, 2006) has found that arts donors are
more likely to have no children at home.

• Health donations are very close together, regardless of donation, ranging from a low of
$94 for Silent generation donors to health to a high of $130 for Boomer donors to
health. Millennial donors to health contributed an average of $108, which is not
statistically different from the average health donation of the oldest group, the Great
generation, at $110.

Study of giving and generations, p. 15 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 4 shows the average gift amounts in 2006 (an annual total) contributed by donors within
each generation to five other types of charities. These gift amounts reflect contributions made
by individuals giving to that specific type of charity. Outlier amounts (more than three standard
deviations from the mean) are excluded in these averages.

All of these subsectors show increasing averages from Millennial through Boomer, then lower
averages for Silent and Great generation donors.

Figure 4
Average gift amount (excluding outliers),

$603
by generation by donor to type of recipient, five of ten ypes of recipients

Millennial X Boomer Silent Great

$350
$279
$257
$222
$202
$174

$161

$160

$149

$139
$138

$134
$133

$130

$129
$120

$119
$103
$101

$90
$81

$79
$59

$31

ily
s

er
l
c

na

al
si

th
am
Ba

m
io

O
ni
at

/F
t/A
rn

h
ut
te

en

Yo
In

nm
ro
vi
En

• Basic needs giving follows the anticipated curve based on income, with Millennials and
Great generation donors giving comparable amounts ($133 and $138, respectively) the
Gen X and Silent generation donors to basic needs giving close amounts ($174 and
$161, respectively), and Boomers giving the highest average amount ($202).

• International aid and international affairs giving shows an even stronger trend by
presumed income level. Among the Millennials, the average donation is $59. For
Generation X and Boomers, the average gift to this type of cause is $222 and $257,
respectively. The Silent generation donors for this cause give $130 on average, and the
Great generation donors give an average of $31 when they support this purpose.

• Environment and animals combines two different types of charities in the survey. When
combined, average Silent generation donations, at $160, are twice that of average
Millennial giving of $81. The Great generation drops to an average of $103.

Study of giving and generations, p. 16 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • Youth and family donations not only follow income; they might also be influenced by
households that have school-aged children at home. The average donation for the
younger generations ranges from $119 for Millennials to $149 from Boomers. The
average drops to $90 for Silent generation donors to these types of causes, and drops
again to $79 for Great generation donors.

• Other giving includes giving for social rights, veterans’ affairs organizations and any
other type of charity that the individual didn’t report earlier. There is a great deal of
variation in this category, ranging from a low of $129 in the Great generation (which is
statistically not different from the average $139 in the Millennials) to a high of $603 in
the Boomer generation. This is highest among Boomers (except religious giving), but
the list of other organizations is not detailed enough for us to assess why. Generation X
gives an average of $279 to other types of charities, and the Silent generation donors
report an average of $350 to other causes.

Study of giving and generations, p. 17 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 5 shows the comparative percentages of donors by generation by type of recipient. This
is more detailed than Figure 1, which separates recipient types into religious (houses of
worship, ministries) and secular (which include faith-based organizations providing other types
of service). For nearly every type of charity, a higher percentage of Great, Silent, and Boomer
generation members contribute than do Gen X and Millennial generation members.

Figure 5
Percentage of Respondents Giving to Types of Recipient, by Generation

13.2
Other
18.8
11.2 Youth/Family
21.0
18.7 12.6
10.2 Environment/Ani
22.9 mals
6.7 57.4
20.6 9.1
6.9 Intl
17.9 16.6
13.6 7.5 46.0 15.7
19.1 Basic
16.2 6.9
7.2 42.1
18.8 47.9
34.0 Education
33.8
20.4
40.0
21.8 16.1
17.1 Health
28.4
21.7 13.3
20.6
9.5 12.5
10.2 63.5
Arts
60.0
56.9 57.8
55.5 Umbrella

72.0 Religion
46.7 57.1
41.5 45.1

Millennial X Boomer Silent Great

• As a percentage of donors giving to each type of category by generation, as noted

earlier, the likelihood of giving for religious causes rises with age. Just 41.5 percent of
Millennials reported donations to religion, compared with 45.1 percent of Generation X,
46.7 percent of Boomers, 57.1 percent of the Silent generation and 72 percent of the
Great generation.

• Giving to umbrella charities also increased with age. Just fewer than 6 in 10 (55.5
percent) of Millennials gave to umbrella charities. A slightly higher percentage (56.9
percent) of Generation X did, and another slightly higher percentage of Boomers (57.8
percent) did. Among the Silent generation, 60 percent gave to umbrella charities, and
63.5 percent of the Great generation reported gifts to this type of cause.

• Donations to the arts were reported by 10.2 percent of Millennials and 9.5 percent of
Generation X. Among Boomers, 12.5 percent gave to the arts, and in the Silent
generation, 13.3 percent did. The Great generation was most likely to give to the arts,
with 16.1 percent reporting a donation.

Study of giving and generations, p. 18 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a strong relationship between age and giving for
health care. Among the Millennials, 20.6 percent gave for health. About the same, 21.7
percent, of Generation X gave for health. Among Boomers, health giving rose to 28.4
percent of respondents. In the Silent generation, 40 percent gave for health causes, and
in the Great generation, nearly half (47.9 percent) gave to this purpose.

• Education giving appears to be most frequent among people most likely to have
school-aged or college-aged children. Among Millennials, 17.1 percent gave to
education. In Generation X, 21.8 percent did. In Boomers, 20.4 percent gave for
education. The percentage drops among the Silent generation, to 18.8, and drops again
among the Great generation, to 15.7 percent.

• Giving for basic needs surprisingly rises with age. Just over one-third (33.8 percent and
34.0 percent, respectively) of the Millennial generation and Generation X reported gifts
for this type of cause. Four in 10 Boomers (42.1 percent) and nearly half (46.0 percent)
of Silent generation respondents gave for basic needs. Among the Great generation,
almost six in 10 reported a donation (57.4 percent).

• Giving for international aid or international development or relief was relatively

infrequent, with 7.2 to 9.1 percent of Millennials, Gen X, Boomer, and Silent generation
respondents giving to this cause. Among the Great generation, 12.6 percent reported
gifts for international purposes.

• Environment and animals donations were reported by 16.2 percent of Millennials, 19.1
percent of Gen X and 16.6 percent of Boomers. The frequency rises with Silents, to
22.9 percent and is close to that, at 21 percent, among Great generation respondents.

• Donations for youth and family-related causes were low among the Millennials, at 13.6
percent, but rose with Generation X to 17.9 percent and among Boomers to 20.6
percent. They stayed fairly high, at 18.7 and 18.8 percent, respectively, among Silent
and Great generation respondents.

• Other types of donations were reported by 6.9 percent of Millennials, 6.7 percent of
Generation X, 10.2 percent of Boomers, 11.2 percent of the Silent generation and 13.2
percent of Great generation respondents.

Study of giving and generations, p. 19 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 6 shows the share of all reported giving by donors in each generation for each type of
recipient. Members of Gen X in this study gave a large share of their total contributions to
religion, although about 40 percent of the Gen X members in this survey gave at all to religion.
This is because the average gift amount was higher than the average Millennial gift to religion.

Figure 6
Share of giving to type of recipient by generation, 2006
Religion Umbrella Arts Health Education Basic Intl Environment/Animals Youth/Family Other

Millennial 57.1% 21.8% 5.7%4.4%

X 65.8% 14.7% 4.1%

4.8%

Boomer 60.0% 14.5% 6.3% 5.8%

excludes
Silent 64.9% 10.2% 6.3% 5.2% outlier
amounts by
subsector, 3
sd above
mean for
subsector
Great 68.4% 7.7% 6.1% 5.9% for all ages
of donors

As expected, a lower share of Millennial giving (57 percent of dollars contributed) supports
religious causes than we see in the older age groups. The nearly 22 percent supporting
“umbrella charities” is a result of a high average gift ($404). This makes that type of recipient
the largest for Millennials when compared with earlier generations. It is also true that Millennials
give comparatively less than other generations to other types of charities; this is a combination
of lower participation rates and lower average gifts.

It is not surprising, perhaps, that the oldest generation of donors are contributing a larger share
to health, whereas the Boomer and Silent generations, with children still finishing their own
educations, are giving the highest share–6 percent of their gift dollars–to education.

In all generations, the percentage of dollars supporting the basic needs of the very poor is
relatively small, ranging from 4.4 percent among the Millennials to 5.9 percent among the Great
generation. While this type of cause is supported by many people, the average gift is $100 to
$200, compared with average gifts of $1,266 (Great) and $1,882 (Boomer) for donors giving to
religion (refer to Figure 2).

Study of giving and generations, p. 20 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Motivations
The survey asked donors what motivates them to give to charitable causes. Of the 13
motivations provided, each respondent was asked to list the single most important and the
three most important in making a decision about charitable giving. The thirteen motivations are
as follows:
• Providing for basic needs of the very poor
• Giving the poor a way to help themselves
• Giving others the opportunity that you had
• Responsibility of those who have more to give to those who have less
• Need to address fundamental problems in our world
• Need to provide services that the government can’t or won’t
• Desire to make my community a better place to live
• Supporting positive efforts of friends, colleagues, or family
• Desire to make the world a better place to live
• Make decisions on where my money goes instead of letting the government
decide
• Ensuring a place for people’s differences in ideals, beliefs, cultures
• Interest in building ties across communities
• Other (please specify)

Table 2 shows the three most frequently cited motivations for the entire survey population.

Table 2: Percentage of Respondents Who Said the Following Are Motivations for Giving

Basic Needs Poor Help Selves Community Better

Millennials 39.4 (2)* 28.5 (5) 34.3 (3)
X 39.6 (1) 34.3 (4) 39.4 (2)
Boomers 44.9 (1) 38.6 (2) 35.9 (3)
Silent 46.7 (1) 41.3 (2) 34.5 (3)
Great 52.3 (1) 43.9 (2) 36.7 (3)
Overall 43.0 36.7 36.7
n = 8,103
* Numbers in parentheses represent the frequency rank within the respective generation.

Table 2 shows that each respective generation ranks motivations in much the same way as the
population as a whole. The clear exception to the ranking of motivations occurs where the
Millennial and X generations do not reference “giving the poor a way to help themselves” within
the three most important motivations. The percentage of respondents, both within each
generation and overall, that answered yes to each motivation is provided in the Appendix
(Table A-1 and Figure A-1). Of the 10,013 survey participants, 1,910 were either not asked
about motivations or refused to answer the question. Respondents were not asked about
motivations if 1) they did not contribute to any causes or organizations; or 2) if they only gave
to political causes or organizations. Table A-1 shows that the six most frequently cited
motivations over the entire respondent population are also similarly aligned with the
motivational rank within generations.

Study of giving and generations, p. 21 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 7 graphs the percentage of respondents by generation who selected each of the five
motivations that were the most frequent for all who responded to the motivation questions.

Figure 7
Percentage selecting each of the top five motivations, by generation
Donors could select three - these are the highest frequency motivations overall

Millennials X Boomers Silent Great Overall

52.3

46.7
44.9 44.5
43.9
43
41.3
39.439.6 39.4 38.6
36.736.7 36.7 37.3
35.9 35.4
34.3 34.5 34.3 33.8
31.9

28.5 28.7
27.827.828.5 27.9
26.5

21.7

Basic needs of poor Make community better Give poor a way to help Make world better Responsibility to help those
themselves with less

Control Variables
The overriding question in this research deals with motivation for giving based on generations;
however, for an accurate analysis, we must take into account a number of other control
variables that past research has shown to have significant explanatory power for
understanding charitable giving. These other variables are:
• Income
• Education
• Age of children in the home
• Marital status
• Frequency of religious attendance
By controlling for such variables we can infer that if a difference in motivation exists, it is due to
membership in a particular generation instead of differences in the control variables. In other
words, controlling for variables allows us to consider two people as identical in every control
category (income, education and so on) except generation, allowing us to identify only the
effect on giving based on generation. Tables 3–7 provide a general overview of these variables.

Table 3 provides the percentage of the entire population and within generations that fall within
three income levels. In the first column, we see that the Millennial, Silent and Great generations

Study of giving and generations, p. 22 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
have more people, as a percent of the generation members, within the income range for “less
than $50,000.” This is plausible because the Millennials are young and have not been in
careers very long, and the majority of Silent and the Great generations are most likely retired or
semiretired. In all cases, the three generations would most likely have lower incomes. Of similar
interest, we notice that of those making more than $100,000, the only generation with a
percentage of its group greater than the overall population percentage is the Boomer
generation. Understandably, the Boomers have been careers longer than other working-age
generations, and we would expect higher pay based on experience and seniority in an industry.
The descriptive statistics in Table 2 follow what we would expect regarding income differences
between generations.

Table 3: Percentage within Each Income Category, by Generation and Overall

< $50,000 $50K–$99,999 • $100,000

Millennial 51.9% 37.0% 11.1%
X 42.0% 41.7% 16.3%
Boomer 47.0% 26.6% 26.4%
Silent 63.1% 24.3% 12.7%
Great 77.6% 16.8% 5.6%
Total Sample 49.2% 32.0% 18.7%

A second important control variable is education. Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for the
entire population and within each generation based on education. The Millennial generation
has a high percentage of members with less than a high school diploma and a low percentage
with a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with other generations. This point is not alarming
because the Millennial generation includes those born between 1981 and 2000, meaning that
most of this generation might not have completed their educations. The Silent and Great
generations have very similar education levels; however, there is a clear break starting with the
Boomers and continuing through subsequent generations. Looking at the level of education in
each generation, the Silent, Great and Boomer generations have the highest percentage of
members with at least a high school level of education. The Boomers, however, have
significantly more members with either some college or a bachelor’s degree or higher,
compared with the Silent and Great generations. Starting with Gen X and including the
Millennials, these generations have a clear majority of their members with either some college
or a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Table 4: Percentage within each Education Level by Generation and Overall

< High School High School Some College • Bachelor’s

Degree
Millennial 19.6% 22.7% 50.4% 7.4%
X 6.6% 24.0% 32.0% 37.3%
Boomer 13.9% 35.4% 23.8% 27.0%
Silent 24.8% 43.1% 16.3% 15.8%
Great 28.2% 41.8% 16.4% 13.6%
Total Sample 14.1% 31.8% 27.6% 26.6%

Table 5 shows by generation whether or not a household has children within a specific age
range. The ranges are the following:
• less than 2 years old,

Study of giving and generations, p. 23 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • 2 to 5 years old,
• 6 to 12 years old, and
• 13 to 17 years old.
The last category includes people considered Millennials and they counted themselves if they
were responding to the survey. Not surprisingly, Gen X was most likely to have children of any
age living in the household, and people in the Silent and Great Generations were not likely at all
to have children in the household. Boomers, the youngest of whom are now 43, have
elementary-school age and high-school age children, but few preschoolers.

Table 5: Percentage of Households with Children

in the Age Range Living in the Household

Age <2 2–5 6–12 13–17

Millennial 2.0% 7.7% 6.6% 22.4%*
X 2.4% 21.9% 25.9% 13.3%
Boomer 0.1% 2.8% 10.3% 14.0%
Silent 0.0% 0.6% 1.8% 2.0%
Great 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Total Sample 1.1% 9.5% 13.8% 12.0%
* Millennials in this age group counted themselves in the household. The survey was not
restricted to heads of household.

In prior work,4 scholars found that being married is strongly associated with giving at all and
higher amounts given. In this survey, nearly 55 percent of respondents were married. Table 6
shows the percentage of each generation by marital status. Millennials are most likely to be
single. Gen X respondents are most likely to be married, but with little difference in the
percentage of Gen X, Boomers and Silent generation respondents who are married now. Great
generation respondents are roughly equally likely to be married now as to be widowed.

Table 6: Percentage of Generation by Marital Status

Marital
Status Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated
Millennial 10.6% 88.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6%
X 60.0% 31.8% 5.8% 0.3% 2.0%
Boomers 58.0% 16.9% 19.1% 3.4% 2.6%
Silent 59.3% 5.1% 17.8% 15.9% 1.9%
Great 48.4% 1.9% 7.8% 41.9% 0.0%
Total Sample 54.5% 25.9% 12.3% 5.3% 2.0%

4
Rooney et al. Economics Letters; Havens and Schervish, Unmarrieds, other citations.

Study of giving and generations, p. 24 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Table 7 is an overview of religious attendance based on generation and the entire population.
The data show that for each generation and for the overall sample, the largest percentages of
members are on the extremes.

• A clear majority of the population attends religious services either “at least once a
week” or “once a year or less.”

• The Silent generation has the highest percentage of any generation in a single
attendance category, with 59.7% of the Silent generation attending religious services at
least once a week.

• The X and Boomer generations have very similar percentages attending religious
services in every category, and these categories are very different from the other
generations. For instance, the percentage of Generation X and the Boomer generation
who attend religious services more than once a year but less than monthly is 19.1
percent and 19.6 percent respectively.

However, the percentage of those in the Millennial, Silent and Great generations who attend
religious services more than once a year but less than monthly are 26.4 percent, 15.4 percent,
and 10.6 percent, respectively.

Table 7: Religious Attendance Overall and by Generation

Once a More than At Least At Least

Year or Once a Once a Once a
Less Year but Month but Week
Less than Not as
Monthly Often as
Once a
Week
Millennial 34.1% 26.4% 11.6% 27.9%
X 35.3% 19.1% 14.7% 30.8%
Boomer 33.9% 19.6% 14.0% 32.5%
Silent 27.2% 15.4% 11.1% 46.3%
Great 18.3% 10.6% 11.4% 59.7%
Total Sample 32.8% 19.0% 16.5% 34.7%

Prior work has shown that giving varies by frequency of religious attendance. In this survey, we
can compare motivations for giving by frequency of religious attendance. Figure 8 shows that
there are some differences, with people who never attend worship services less likely than
attenders to say they give to help meet the needs of the poor, to help the poor help themselves
or because those with more have a responsibility to help those with less. This summary is
before using religious attendance as a control variable and shows simply the percentage of
people who selected each type of motivation as one of the top three motivations (from a choice
of 13) for their charitable giving.

Study of giving and generations, p. 25 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Figure 8

Percentage selecting motivation, by frequency of religious attendance, 2006

Never A few times a year or less A few times a year Once or twice a month
Once a week More than once a week Total

39 39
37 38 37 37
36 36
35 35 35
34 34

30 30 30 30
29 29 29
28 27 28 28 28 27 28 28 28 27 28 28
26 26 26

Basic needs of poor Make community better Give poor a way to help Make world better Responsibility to help
themselves those with less

Analytical methods used and how to interpret results

We use two statistical procedures to analyze these data. The first, which evaluates the
probability that a respondent gives one answer instead of the opposite, is called a probit. It is
most often used for yes/no types of questions. Using this method, there is a dependent
variable (the thing we are trying to predict or estimate) and independent variables (factors that
are potentially associated with the dependent variable). To evaluate whether or not someone
gives, for example, the dependent variable is the answer the person provides to this question:
Did you give to charity last year? Independent variables are measures of attributes known
already—or hypothesized—to be associated with the giving decision. These variables include
income level, education level, marital status, whether or not the person lives in a certain size of
community or certain region of the country, and so on.

When we report the results of a probit, each finding is always compared with a reference group
or “omitted” value and takes into account ALL of the independent variables at once. Taking
into account of all variables at once is called “with controls,” or “controlling for other variables.”
So, in an example, we could say that people who are single are less likely than some other
group [in our analysis, people who are married] to make a charitable gift, after controls. We
would also say that people with a college degree are more likely than people with only a high
school diploma to give, after controls. When we say “after controls,” it means we have
included in the analysis all the other factors such as income, education level, frequency of

Study of giving and generations, p. 26 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
religious attendance, region of residence, age of children, and so on. The tables included in
this paper show the “omitted” variables, against which the others are compared.

The other technique is called a Tobit, which is partially named for the scholar who originated it,
Tobin. It is similar to a probit, but instead of estimating or predicting a yes/no answer, it is used
to estimate a specific measure of something continuous (here, dollars). Tobits are used when
the unit measured cannot fall below zero (one cannot make a negative contribution). Tobit
results tell us how much each factor or variable influences or is linked to the dependent
variable. In this work, Tobits are used for dollar amount donated, holding all the other factors
constant. Results are also reported in comparison with a reference group and with controls for
all other variables. Single individuals give less, on average, than married individuals, after
controls. People with a college degree give more, on average, than people with a high school
degree, after controls, including income.

Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 (located at the end of the paper) provide the probit and Tobit results
and show whether certain factors, or control variables, are associated with a person’s different
motivations for giving and type of giving preferences. All four tables report plus (+) and
minus (-) to denote the sign of the relationship between the explanatory variable and the
dependent. A plus (+) in the table reports that the variable on the left is positively correlated
with the variable along the top of the column; whereas a minus (-) denotes a negative
correlation. Further, a single plus (+) or minus (-) is statistically significant at the p<0.05 level,
two (++ or --) denote statistical significance at the p<0.01 level, and three (+++ or ---) show the
level of significance as p<0.001. In a more general sense, more plusses or minuses mean that
we are more certain, based on the statistical analysis, that the variable on the left has an
impact on the dependent variable along the top of the column. If a row or column has no plus
or minus, then based on the analysis, we found that the particular independent variable (rows)
had no statistically significant correlation on the variable we are trying to predict (columns),
when controlling for all of the other variables in the model.

When claiming that two variables are associated with one another, we must be certain that we
do not claim causation simply because of correlation. The implication for this analysis is that
the more plusses or minuses we have, the more likely it is that the underlying relationship is
statistically valid and not attributable to random chance. For instance, a single plus represents
a positive relationship between the independent and dependent variables and a p-value < 0.05.
A p-value < 0.05 means that if we were to repeat the survey with different respondents, we
would get the same results 95 out of 100 times.

Study of giving and generations, p. 27 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Results for Overall, Secular and Religious Giving
Table 8 provides the results for probit regression, which looks for factors associated with
giving (or not) to charitable organizations. Columns 1, 2, and 3 analyze what variables are
positively and negatively correlated with giving to any charitable organization, secular
organizations and religious organizations, respectively. The probit results in Table 8 show
whether people of specific categories are more or less likely to give at all. The first column,
whether or not they gave to any charitable organization, includes whether they gave to secular
or religious types of charities. Notice that in each category of variables we have selected a
reference group (in italics). For instance, in the generation category, the Boomers are the
reference group. The reference group is then used in comparison with the included groups’
giving amount and likelihood for having a particular motivation.

Compared with Boomers:

• Membership in other generations has no statistically significant impact on

whether or not people give at all (to any type of cause) when controlling for
income, education, marital status, race, education, region of the country,
religious attendance and age of youngest child in household.

• Giving to secular and religious organizations does vary by generation:

o Members of the Silent generation are more significantly likely than
Boomers to give to both secular and religious organizations.
o The Great generation is more likely to give to religious organizations
compared with the Boomers, when controlling for all other variables.
o Generation X is less likely to give to religious organizations than the
Boomer generation, controlling for all other variables.

Table 9 provides further analysis in which we considered the amount of giving to secular and
religious organizations, as well as overall giving. With regard to the amount of giving overall, to
secular organizations and to religious organizations, we found no statistically significant
difference when comparing the Boomer generation to others, after controlling for the previously
mentioned variables.

Further Results Other than Generational Differences

Beyond results based on generations in Tables 8 and 9, the following results are very
surprising:

• People who attend religious services once a year or more are more likely to give to
secular organizations compared with people who never attend religious services,
holding all other variables constant. Prior work has only shown frequency of attendance
of a week or more to matter in secular giving.

• Blacks, Hispanics and “Other” are less likely to give to secular organizations, and
members of other races are less likely to give to religious charities as well after
controlling for all other variables. These findings are not consistent with prior research.

In the first case, we fully expect people who attend religious services more to give more to
religious organizations. If someone finds it important to attend religious services, it seems fair
that they would decide to donate to such causes as well. However, respondents who attend

Study of giving and generations, p. 28 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
religious services at least once a year are more likely to give to secular organizations as well.
This suggests a major difference in the likelihood that people will give at all, not only to
religious organizations, between people who attend religious services and those who do not.
Some recent studies suggest that it is not strength of religious belief that is at play here but a
higher level of connection with other people who are associated with a religious belief or
practice (Brown and Ferris, 2007).

Prior research (Rooney et al., 2005) has found no statistically significant difference in giving by
people of different racial or ethnic heritages. The results here are surprising because they are
inconsistent with that work. Further research is needed to determine the potential
methodological or other factors that could explain the differences. For example, work by
Rooney, Schervish, et al. (2004) has shown that the way questions are asked determines how
people of different groups hear–and respond to–inquiries. It is possible that the Knowledge
Networks survey, by asking questions in different ways from other work, gets at different types
of giving.

The following findings were significant, although not very surprising because they confirm
previous research findings or follow common intuition:

• People of higher incomes give more overall to charitable organizations, and to secular
and religious charities, holding all other factors constant.

• People who attend religious services more often give more to religious organizations,
holding all other variables constant.

• Single and divorced respondents are less likely to give to religious organizations when
keeping all other variables constant.

• Single and separated individuals are less likely to give at all and to secular charities,
holding all other variables constant.

• People with higher education are more likely to give to both religious and secular
organizations. Since we are controlling for income, this is a pure “education effect.”

• Regional differences in giving were not significant, after controlling for all other factors,
except that people living in the West are less likely to give to religious organizations.

Potential Implications for the Findings About Giving

Fundraising organizations can use Table 8 to better understand potential donors. For instance,
if a religious organization is seeking to influence donors to give, the organization would be
more likely to increase the number of donors by appealing to people of the Silent and Great
generations, higher income levels, those with some college or more, and those who attend
religious services. Secular organizations looking to increase the number of donors would find a
similar strategy useful, although slightly altering that of religious organizations by including
those with a high school education and not including the Great generation.

Study of giving and generations, p. 29 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Motivations for Giving
The Knowledge Networks survey asked donors about motivations for giving. A total of 13
motivations statements were offered. People were asked to pick up to three motivations as
important. In a second question, they were asked to identify a single motivation as the most
important.

Tables 10 and 11 focus on motivations and provide a wider range of implications for
fundraising organizations and provide results for why people are motivated to give to charitable
organizations. Table 10 analyzes the seven most frequently cited motivations, and Table 11
analyzes the most important motivation.

Our findings provide interesting insights for fundraising organizations:

• The Silent generation is more likely to be motivated to give in order to provide where
the government can’t or won’t, and the Millennial generation and Generation X are less
motivated by this than Boomers, holding all other variables constant.

• The Millennial generation cares more about giving to charities in order to make the
world a better place to live and less about knowing how their money is being spent,
holding all other variables constant.

• People making less than $50,000 per year are more likely to give to charities that help
the poor help themselves; people making more than $125,000 are more likely to select
as a reason to give the responsibility to help those with less, holding all other variables
constant.

• Respondents in the lowest income group find more motivation from helping provide for
the basic needs of the very poor; people in the highest income group are less likely to
be motivated by the basic needs of the very poor, holding all other variables constant.

• Age of youngest child does not affect motivations except that people whose youngest
child is older than 13 are less motivated to give because of a responsibility to help
those with less, holding other variables constant.

• Black donors select more often than non-Hispanic white donors the motivation to
provide for the basic needs of the very poor, and less often select a desire to control
where or how their money is being spent or providing services where the government is
lacking, holding all other variables constant.

• Hispanic donors select more often than non-Hispanic white donors the motivation to
provide for the basic needs of the very poor and the motivation of helping the poor help
themselves. Hispanic donors are less likely to give as a way to control where their
money is being spent, holding all other factors constant.

• People who attend religious services between once per year and one or two times per
month are more likely than those who never attend to give to charities in order to help
improve their community. However, it is very interesting to note that people who attend
religious services more than once a week are less likely to give to charities in order to
help improve their community, holding all other variables constant.

Study of giving and generations, p. 30 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • Those who attend religious services frequently (once or twice per month or once per
week) are less likely to give for reasons of providing where government does not.
However, those attending weekly are more likely to give out of a responsibility to help
those with less, holding all other variables constant.

The results in Table 10 provide interesting insights into why people who attend religious
services are motivated to give. As already mentioned:

• Those who attend religious services between once a year and one or two times per
month are more likely to be motivated to give in an attempt to make the community in
which they live a better place to live. This result also holds when considering a person’s
most important motivation for giving (results in Table 11). Religious organizations are
often actively involved in their local communities, so it makes sense that members of
these groups are motivated by helping the community.

• Respondents who attend religious services more than once a week are less likely to
share this motivation of making the community a better place to live. In fact, when
considering the most important motivation, those who attend religious services more
than once a week are motivated by making the world a better place to live and deciding
where their money goes.

The implication for a fundraising organization will depend on which group they are seeking out
as donors. Potential donors who attend religious services more than once a week are more
likely to be interested in giving to help the world and deciding where their money is spent.
Less-frequent religious attendees are more likely to donate for reasons of improving the
community.

Implications for the single most important motivation

Table 11 summarizes results for the respondents’ most important motivation. The following
findings were important as any motivation and as the most important motivation:

• People with income of more than $100,000 per year, except those in the $150,000–
$174,999 income category, are more likely to be motivated to give out of a
responsibility to help those with less, holding all other variables constant, than are
people in the middle income group of $50,000–$74,999.

• Black donors and Hispanic donors are more motivated than non-Hispanic white
donors by a desire to provide for the basic needs of the very poor but not other
factors, holding all other variables constant.

• Respondents living in the South and West find more motivation from helping the
poor help themselves, holding all other variables constant and when compared with
donors in the Northeast.

• People who attend religious services between once a year and one or two times per
month are more likely to give in order to improve their community, holding all other
variables constant.

Study of giving and generations, p. 31 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 • People who attend religious services more than once a week are more likely to
respond that making the world a better place to live is their most important
motivation for giving.

Table 11 adds to the findings from Table 10. We notice that those making less than $50,000
per year find less motivation in making the world a better place to live. Further, people making
less than $25,000 are also less likely to be motivated by making their community a better place
to live.

Considering Table 10 and Table 11, a fundraising organization wanting to appeal to people
making less than $50,000 might find more success by appealing to the following motivations:

• Providing for the basic needs of the very poor

• Giving the poor a way to help themselves

For this same group, those making less than $50,000, fundraising organizations would be
better served by limiting appeals for donors to give for reasons of:

• Desire to make my community a better place to live

• Desire to make the world a better place to live

Study of giving and generations, p. 32 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Conclusion
This study uses a nationally representative dataset collected by Knowledge Networks to
examine charitable giving and motivations for charitable giving by people of five generations
defined by demographers: Great, Silent, Boomer, X and Millennial. The Knowledge Networks
data allow for analysis of giving by people of different generations, with controls for income,
education, marital status and other factors known to be correlated to charitable giving. When
analyzed this way, we look at differences in giving and in differences in motivations.

In giving differences:

• Generation X gives less often than Boomers to religious organizations, controlling

for all other factors.

• The Silent and Great generations give more often than Boomers (and by extension,
more often than Gen X) to religious organizations.

• The Silent generation gives more often than Boomers to secular organizations.

• There are no statistically significant differences in the amount given overall to

secular or to religious causes when comparing donors only in different generations
and controlling for all other factors.

In motivational differences for donors of different generations:

• Millennials, when compared with Boomers, are more likely to desire to make the
world a better place;

• Millennials and Gen X donors, when compared with Boomers, are less likely to want
to fund services that government cannot or will not provide.

• Members of the Silent generation are more likely than Boomers to say that the most
important motivation is to control where their money goes.

There is much anecdotal evidence of differences in giving by generations. We find that

generation itself was not usually the important factor after controls for income, education,
marital status, age of children and frequency of religious service attendance. In the few cases
where motivations were different across generations, the differences were in the “secondary”
motivations, not in the single statement that respondents were asked to select as the most
important motivation. The differences found in motivations were by income level, education
level, and occasionally race. Frequency of religious attendance also played a role in
motivational and giving differences. Understanding how people respond to requests for
support within these groups of traits may be more useful than thinking about age or
generation.

Study of giving and generations, p. 33 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Table 8: Probit Results
Statistically Significant Positive/Negative Impact
Likelihood that People Give at all, to Secular Organizations or to Religious Organizations
Reference Group in Total Gave to Secular Gave to Religious
Italics Giving Organizations Organizations
Generation
Millennial
X ---
Boomer NA NA NA
Silent +++ +
Great ++
Income
< $25,000 --- --- ---
$25K– $49,999 -
$50,000–$74,999 NA NA NA
$75K–$99,999 +++ ++
$100K–$124,999 +++ +++ +
$125K–$149,999 +++ +++
$150K–$174,999 + ++ +
• $175 ++ +++ +
Marital Status
Married NA NA NA
Single --- - ---
Divorced ---
Widowed
Separated - -
Race
White NA NA NA
Black - -
Other -- --
Hispanic -
• 2 races
Education
< High School NA NA NA
High School + ++
Some College +++ +++ +++
• Bachelor Deg +++ +++ +++
Region
Northwest NA NA NA
Midwest
South
West -
Religious Attendance
Never NA NA NA
>0, • 1 per year +++ +++ +++
Few times/year +++ +++ +++
1–2 per month +++ ++ +++
1 per week +++ +++ +++
• 1 per week +++ +++ +++
Age Youngest Child
<2 NA NA NA
2–5
6–12
13–17
• 18
Table 9: Tobit Results

Study of giving and generations, p. 34 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Statistically Significant Positive/Negative Impact on Amount of Giving
Reference Group in Total Gave to Secular Gave to Religious
Italics Giving Organizations Organizations
Generation
Millennial
X
Boomer NA NA NA
Silent
Great
Income
< $25,000 --- --- ---
$25K–$49,999
$50,000–$74,999 NA NA NA
$75K–$99,999 + +
$100K–$124,999 + +
$125K–$149,999 +
$150K–$174,999 +
• $175,000 + +
Marital Status
Married NA NA NA
Single -
Divorced
Widowed
Separated
Race
White NA NA NA
Black
Other
Hispanic
• 2 races -
Education
< High School NA NA NA
High School
Some College
• Bachelor Deg ++ ++
Region
Northwest NA NA NA
Midwest
South
West
Religious Attendance
Never NA NA NA
>0, • 1 per year +++
Few times/year ++ +++
1–2 per month ++ +++
1 per week +++ ++ +++
• 1 per week +++ +++
Age Youngest Child
<2 NA NA NA
2–5
6–12
13–17
• 18
+/- p< 0.05, ++/-- p< 0.01, +++/--- p < 0.001

Study of giving and generations, p. 35 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Table 10: Probit Results
Statistically Significant Positive/Negative Impact
Likelihood People are Motivated to Give
Reference Group in Italics Basic Help Selves Responsibility Government Community World Money
Generation
Millennial - ++ --
X --
Boomer NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Silent ++
Great
Income
< $25,000 ++ +++
$25K–$49,999 ++
$50K–$74,999 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$75K–$99,999
$100K–$124,999
$125K–$149,999 +
$150K–$174,999 ++
• $175 --- ++ -
Marital Status
Married NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Single --
Divorced --
Widowed ++ --
Separated
Race
White NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Black +++ - ---
Other --
Hispanic + ++ -
• 2 races
Education
< High School NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
High School
Some College ---
• Bachelors -- +++ ---
Region
Northwest NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Midwest -
South ++ -
West
Religious Attendance
Never NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
>0, • 1 per year +
Few times/year ++
1–2 per month --- ++
1 per week + ---
• 1 per week -
Age Youngest Child
<2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2–5
6–12
13–17 --
• 18 -
+/- p< 0.05, ++/-- p< 0.01, +++/--- p < 0.001

Study of giving and generations, p. 36 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Table 11: Probit Results
Statistically Significant Positive/Negative Impact
Likelihood People Are MOST Motivated to Give
Reference Group in Italics Basic Help Selves Responsibility Government Community World Money
Generation
Millennial - +
X --
Boomer NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Silent ++
Great
Income
< $25,000 -- --
$25K–$49,999 ---
$50K–$74,999 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
$75K–$99,999
$100K–$124,999 + +
$125K–$149,999 +
$150K–$174,999
• $175 - +++ -
Marital Status
Married NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Single - -
Divorced -
Widowed +++
Separated ++
Race -
White NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Black +
Other
Hispanic +
• 2 races
Education
< High School NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
High School
Some College +++
• Bachelors --- --- +++ +
Region
Northwest NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Midwest --
South + -
West ++
Religious Attend
Never NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
>0, • 1 per year ++
Few times/year ++ -- +++
1–2 per month + ++
1 per week ++ ++ +++ --- ++ ++
• 1 per week + + +
Age Youngest Child
<2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2–-5
6–12 +
13–17 -
• 18 +
+/- p< 0.05, ++/-- p< 0.01, +++/--- p < 0.001

Study of giving and generations, p. 37 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
Citations
Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P. 2007. Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review.

Brown, E., and Ferris, J. 2007. Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of
social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
June 2007.

Howe, N and Strauss, W. 1991 Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069.
(New York: William Morrow & Co.).

Huntley, R. 2006. The World According to Y: Inside the New Adult Generation,
(Sydney: Allen and Unwin).

Johnson, L. & Hanson, C. 2006. Mind your X's and Y's. (New York: Free Press).

Independent Sector, Giving and Volunteering in the United States, Independent Sector, 2001.
See also editions from 1988 forward.

Mitchell, S. (2003), American Generations. Who They Are. How They Live. What They Think,
New Strategist Publications, Ithaca, NY, .Mitchell, 2003.

Sargeant, A. and Woodliffe, L. 2007. Building Donor Loyalty: The Antecedents and Role of
Commitment in the Context of Charity Giving. Working paper.

Target Analysis Group in its summary of the Q2 2007 Index of National Fundraising
Performance, http://www.targetanalysis.com/NatIndexQ207.php, viewed October 19,
2007.

Tolgan, B. 1997. Manager’s Pocket Guide to Generation X. (HRD Press).

Wilhelm, M., P. Rooney and E. Tempel, Changes in religious giving reflect changes in
involvement: Age and cohort effects in religious giving, secular giving, and attendance, Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol . 46, No. 2. June 2007.

Study of giving and generations, p. 38 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Appendix A: Motivations identified by people in each
generation
Table A-1: Percent Who Said the Following Were Motivations for Giving
Note that motivations were randomly rotated in the survey itself so that respondents did not all receive
them in the same order. These are ordered here according to the ratings of Millennials
Millennials X Boomers Silent Great
Overall
(1981– (1964– (1946– (1929– (• 1928)
n=8,103
2000) 1981) 1963) 1945) n=264
n=655 n=2,735 n=2,992 n=1,296
Desire to make world
44.5 (1) 37.3 (3) 33.8 (4) 31.9 (4) 26.5 (5) 35.4 (4)
better place to live
Provide for basic needs of
39.4 (2) 39.6 (1) 44.9 (1) 46.7 (1) 52.3 (1) 43.0 (1)
the poor
Desire to make community
34.3 (3) 39.4 (2) 35.9 (3) 34.5 (3) 36.7 (3) 36.7 (2)
better place to live
Responsibility of those
who have to help those 28.7 (4) 27.8 (5) 27.8 (5) 28.5 (7) 21.7 (7) 27.9 (5)
with less
Giving the poor a way to
28.5 (5) 34.3 (4) 38.6 (2) 41.3 (2) 43.9 (2) 36.7 (3)
help themselves
Make decisions where my
20.7 (6) 24.1 (6) 25.4 (6) 29.2 (5) 28.9 (6) 25.3 (6)
money goes
Address problems in world 23.8 (7) 18.5 (8) 16.4 (9) 14.8 (9) 12.2 (10) 17.5 (8)
Need to provide services
19.5 (8) 20.5 (7) 24.0 (7) 28.6 (6) 30.3 (4) 23.4 (7)
government can’t or won’t
Giving others the
18.0 (9) 16.1 (9) 17.3 (8) 15.0 (8) 15.9 (8) 16.4 (9)
opportunity that you had
Support the efforts of
14.2 (10) 16.0 (10) 13.4 (10) 10.3 (10) 12.5 (9) 13.8 (10)
friends
Ensure place for
8.4 (11) 7.0 (11) 5.7 (11) 3.9 (11) 4.9 (11) 6.0 (11)
differences in ideals
Build social ties across
5.6 (12) 5.6 (12) 3.9 (12) 3.4 (12) 4.2 (12) 4.6 (12)
communities
Other 4.4 (13) 4.6 (13) 3.6 (13) 2.8 (13) 0.4 (13) 3.9 (13)
*The number in parentheses is the percentage rank of each generation who said the motivation
was the most important in their decision to give.

Study of giving and generations, p. 39 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008
 Percent
M Ba
si

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ak c
e ne
co
m ed
s
m
un
H ity
el
p be
po t te
or r
h el
p
M se
ak lv
e es

Study of giving and generations, p. 40

w
or
ld
be
D R
tte
r
ec es
i
Millennial

de po
w ns
he ib
X

re ilt
Pr m iy
ov on
id ey
e
w go
he es
So re
Boomers

lv go
e v't
pr ca
ob n'
le
m t
Silent

Motivation
O in
pp
or w
or
Yes to Motivations

tu ld
ni
t
Great

Su y
yo
pp u
Figure A-1: Percent Answering

or ha
tf
rie d
En nd
Overall

su s/
re fa
di m
ffe ily
re
nt
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008 id
Bu ea
ild ls
so
ci
al
tie
s

ot
he
r
Appendix B : Knowledge Networks
http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/index.html

OVERVIEW

One of the core elements of the Knowledge Networks (KN) advantage is our nationwide online
SM.
panel, known as KnowledgePanel Bringing unprecedented accuracy to your research
SM
through statistical projectability, KnowledgePanel is the only online panel that is
representative of the entire U.S. population; it is the valid online resource for such crucial
marketing tasks as:

• Estimating true incidence levels

• Sizing markets and opportunities
• Obtaining publishable findings for peer-reviewed journals

By combining true probability sampling (RDD) and the Internet’s many advantages as a
research medium, KnowledgePanelSM incorporates the views and opinions of all
Americans and is not susceptible to the “professional respondent” problem and other
SM
hazards of “opt-in” online panels. Quite simply, this means that KnowledgePanel provides
the highest level of accuracy and representation available on the web today—a degree of
quality essential to wise marketing and policy spending. [emphasis added]

The unique construction of KnowledgePanelSM is suitable to a broad range of commercial,

academic and policy research applications. This versatility is reflected in the impressive list of
universities, government agencies and prominent companies that rely on KnowledgePanelSM for
their highest priority research projects.

KnowledgePanelSM also offers a variety of other benefits, including:

• Access to our Consumer Profile Database, which contains over 7,000 profile data
points about lifestyle, product use, shopping habits, technological sophistication, and
more
• The ability to target specific respondents – through profile data – with greater accuracy,
reducing costly screen-outs and shortening questionnaires
• High in-panel response rates (65%-75%) and low abandon rates (< 2%), providing high
quality results

Study of giving and generations, p. 41 The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University May 2008