Chip Lupo on American Charitable Giving

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/20

Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.  Lupo discussed trends in charitable giving and community engagement in the U.S., emphasizing the $499 billion donated by Americans in 2023 despite a 2.1% decline from 2022. They highlighted how people increasingly contribute time and expertise, particularly in trades like construction and landscaping. Cities like Virginia Beach excel in volunteering due to safety and low poverty rates, while San Francisco leads in caring for the vulnerable, supported by strong policies. Challenges in low-income, high-crime cities like Memphis and Baton Rouge were noted. The conversation also explored foster care reforms, “Built for Zero” homelessness efforts, and weighted metrics in city rankings.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Americans donate a significant amount of money. In 2023, they donated $499 billion, according to data from Giving USA. How does that compare to other countries? This is an important opening question, though we may not have sufficient comparative data readily available. Still, $499 billion is a substantial figure.

However, when adjusting for inflation, this amount represents a slight decrease from 2022. Studies like these aim to broaden the definition of “caring” beyond monetary contributions. How has this trend of declining donations evolved in recent years? From what I can observe, there has been a steady decline post-COVID. A fair starting point for comparison would be from 2020 to the present.

Chip Lupo: The purpose of this study is to emphasize that caring involves more than just donating money. There are many other impactful ways to show compassion—often summarized as “time, talent, and treasure.” Volunteering time and sharing expertise are critical components of this broader definition. While the decline in donations is notable, Americans remain a compassionate people overall.

For example, there was a 2.1% decline in charitable giving from 2022 to 2023. Are people compensating for this gap by contributing more time rather than money? Yes, they are. Volunteering hours have increased, along with the sharing of professional expertise. For instance, individuals skilled in contracting, home building, landscaping, or other trades can donate their time and skills to help those less fortunate. This kind of contribution holds significant value.

Jacobsen: Lastly, why are Virginia Beach, Scottsdale, and Boston considered among the most caring cities? What specific factors make them stand out?

Lupo: Now, Virginia Beach—it’s largely because, well, they’re number one in the nation for volunteering hours. They also have a high share of residents who go out and fundraise or sell items to raise money for charity. It’s also a relatively safe area, and that’s a huge factor when it comes to volunteering.

People are not likely to go out and do fundraising or charity events in areas where there’s a high risk of crime. Virginia Beach has the second-lowest violent crime rate and the eighth-lowest property crime rate in the country. That shows people are looking out for each other, which indicates that they care about their neighbors. There’s also a low overall poverty rate and an extremely low child poverty rate.

Jacobsen: And what about cities like San Francisco? Why are they number one for caring for the vulnerable?

Lupo: Let’s pull that up here. San Francisco ranks 27th overall, but when it comes to caring for the vulnerable, they perform very well. That category encompasses a number of smaller metrics. Adoption rates are quite high in San Francisco, and they also have strong animal protection laws and a relatively low uninsured rate.

San Francisco also stands out with a high number of rehabilitation centers, which is key. They have a high share of sheltered homeless people and a notable number of pet shelters and rescue services per capita. Additionally, there’s strong availability of paid family leave.

Jacobsen: So, in the case of San Francisco, a lot of this seems policy-driven?

Lupo: Exactly. If local authorities make strong commitments toward volunteering and caring policies, residents are more likely to follow suit. And then you’ve got cities like Memphis, Tennessee; Baton Rouge; and Birmingham, which are at the very bottom of the list. 

Jacobsen: What’s happening there?

Lupo: Yes, those cities are at the very bottom of the 100 ranked cities. They tend to rank low across multiple areas. For instance, they have very high crime rates, both violent and property-related, which discourages volunteering and community involvement.

Let me check here… Yes, they also score poorly in caring for vulnerable populations. So, these cities face significant challenges when it comes to creating an environment conducive to community support and charitable activity.

The highest ranking among those cities is Baton Rouge, which sits at 50th in “caring for the workforce.” However, all of them—New Orleans, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and Birmingham—have very high crime rates, high poverty rates, and significant child poverty. There’s also a noticeable lack of commitment from local officials toward encouraging volunteering.

As we mentioned earlier, in high-crime areas, people are often more reluctant to go out and engage with their community. Instead, they stay indoors to avoid putting themselves at risk of becoming crime victims.

And they’re all located in the Deep South—low-income regions with persistent socioeconomic challenges. 

Jacobsen: Can we correlate the wealth of an area with the level of caring or volunteering that happens there?

Lupo: Yes, that’s a huge factor. The bottom four cities—New Orleans, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and Birmingham—are all in low-income states, particularly Louisiana and Tennessee. These areas struggle with economic hardship, which naturally affects charitable engagement.

Right above them is Detroit, Michigan, another area marked by high crime and low income. In contrast, the cities we mentioned earlier—Virginia Beach, Scottsdale, and Boston—tend to be safer and wealthier.

In places like Boston, for example, there’s a higher education level. With prestigious colleges and universities in the area, there’s a direct correlation between higher education and community engagement. However, Boston does face challenges with its high cost of living, which offsets some of its strengths. As we discussed earlier with inflation, when the cost of living rises, people often donate less money.

Still, people in Boston tend to engage with and look out for their community. So, yes, there’s a strong correlation between the income levels of an area and how compassionate or caring its residents can afford to be.

Jacobsen When these cities are economically poor, do religious organizations or nonprofits pick up more of the slack?

Lupo: I think so. In the Deep South, where religion remains an integral part of the community, you’ll find faith-based organizations playing a significant role. They, along with other nonprofits, often “pick up the slack” when it comes to providing care and compassion.

Jacobsen:  Are there limitations to what nonprofits, charities, and religious organizations can provide compared to government programs, and vice versa?

Lupo: Not necessarily. There’s the general principle of separation of church and state, but nonprofits—including faith-based ones—still have to comply with federal tax laws and regulations. At the local level, though, there’s often collaboration rather than conflict.

If local officials are supportive and encouraging, then you see a better partnership between religious organizations and nonreligious nonprofits. Together, they can address community needs more effectively.

Jacobsen: Foster care has replaced orphanages. Why did that happen? And is this trend good or bad?

Lupo: That’s a complex issue. The shift away from orphanages toward foster care came largely from growing concerns about the institutionalization of children. Orphanages were often seen as impersonal and ill-equipped to provide the emotional and developmental support children need. Foster care, on the other hand, places children in family-like environments where they receive more individualized care.

However, foster care isn’t without its challenges. It often depends on the availability and quality of foster families, and there’s significant variability in outcomes for children. While the trend is generally seen as positive, ongoing improvements are needed to ensure foster care systems provide consistent, high-quality support for vulnerable children.

I think it’s a good thing because foster care allows for more individualized attention. You can address cases on a case-by-case basis as opposed to applying a generalized approach. What’s the word I’m looking for here? It’s more… focused. Yes, it’s more one-to-one, and I think it’s easier to regulate and monitor situations when you’re addressing each case individually rather than managing a large pool.

Jacobsen: And when you were gathering this data, how big was the sample size?

Lupo: Let’s check the methodology here. For two things: the data was either based on metrics available at the state level, or in other cases, we used the square root of the population to calculate the sample size. That approach helps avoid overcompensating for minor differences.

Now, one thing we need to keep in mind, Scott, is that when determining the sample, we only considered the city proper. For example, in the case of San Francisco, the data only reflects San Francisco city itself, not the outlying areas like Palo Alto or Marin County. So the sample size was strictly based on the city’s population.

Jacobsen: And for the rankings—caring for the community, caring for the vulnerable, caring for the workforce—are these metrics weighted equally?

Lupo: No, they’re weighted differently. Yes, certain factors carry more weight. For example, violent crime rates were given a quadruple weight, property crime rates a triple weight, and alcohol-impaired driving fatalities were given half weight. So the weights varied—some were full weight, while others were double, triple, or quadruple, depending on significance.

Jacobsen: What factor did you find to be the most significant in changing a city’s ranking for caring?

Lupo: Some of the biggest drops were seen in the caring for the workforce rank. That’s largely economy-driven. When unemployment rates are high, people are out of work, and combined with inflation, there’s a lower likelihood of people donating money or volunteering time.

Now, you could look at this from another perspective: people who are unemployed might have more time to volunteer. So it’s a bit of a double-edged sword, as we’ve discussed before. Caring isn’t limited to income; individuals can still donate their time and skills to help their community, even when they’re out of work.

Jacobsen: Do you use Google search rankings by state or city as a metric as well?

Lupo: By the city. That’s a great question because Virginia Beach performed very well in this category. When you look at Google search interest for terms like “volunteer,” “nonprofit organizations,” “charitable organizations,” and “charitable donations,” people in Virginia Beach search for these terms more frequently than residents of other cities.

For example, Virginia Beach had the highest search interest, while Scottsdale ranked seventh. That indicates people in those cities are actively looking for ways to help others.

Jacobsen: That’s fascinating. One last question: what are Built for Zero communities in the U.S., and how are they defined?

Lupo: The term “Built for Zero” refers to a national change effort aimed at ending chronic homelessness, particularly for veterans. It used to be known simply as “Zero.” Built for Zero works with a core group of committed communities to develop data on homelessness, optimize local housing resources, and track progress against monthly goals.

The initiative focuses on creating systemic change to ensure communities can achieve and sustain functional zero for veteran and chronic homelessness.

Jacobsen: Chip, as always, thank you very much for your time.

Lupo: Anytime, Scott.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.