LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Julian Wolpert : Charity in Los Angeles-- or the Lack Thereof

Charity and volunteerism will pick up the slack and supply a reliable safety net, it is reasoned, for those who can’t find jobs, pay to see a doctor, buy food for their children or afford rent after federal dollars are tightened or transferred for distribution by the states.

So say congressional Republicans who strongly support the “contract with America” and insist that less government is best. They advocate less federal involvement in programs--medical, education, welfare, environmental, regulatory--developed to help the less well-off, including the poor, the disabled, the unwell and the elderly.

There’s only one problem: It can’t work. So says Julian Wolpert, Bryant Professor at Princeton University and chairman of the research committee of the Independent Sector, the leading organization of charities in the United States. As one of the nation’s most respected experts on patterns of philanthropic giving--who gives where, how much or how little, and why--Wolpert is author of a landmark study, “Patterns of Generosity in America,” comparing charitable giving patterns in America’s 85 largest metropolises.

The hard facts of charity are: Half of all private giving goes to churches and synagogues for basic upkeep. Little to none transfers, Robin Hood-like, from rich to needy. And that which does, through specific programs, is largely attributable to federal grants.

The profile for Los Angeles is particularly unsettling. The city ranked near the bottom of all U.S. cities in per-capita giving, while ranking near the top of major urban centers for the proportion of those living below the poverty level.

By 2002, according to Wolpert, the prognosis for starvation, homelessness, illness and death in Los Angeles County--in numbers not seen since the Great Depression--will worsen because of the effects of a closed federal spigot.

Wolpert, 62, who testified before Congress earlier this year about proposed budget cuts, spoke from his home in Princeton, N.J., about what his study revealed about Los Angeles; his concerns about the fallacies of the “contract with America” and how it ignores the inability of the private sector and nonprofits to maintain services being eliminated or reduced by the government.

*

Question: Your study revealed Los Angeles as one of the least generous cities in the country. Does that surprise you?

Answer: No, not if you look at the broader patterns of the study. Smaller towns were more generous than large, industrial cities were more generous than Sun Belt communities, liberal cities were more generous than conservative.

Q: Why is per-capita giving in Los Angeles at the bottom of the charts?

A: It would really take exhaustive research, or at least a substantial case-study analysis within L.A., but my speculation is that as one of the newer metropolitan areas of the U.S., it didn’t have that great philanthropic tradition that developed in so many of the Eastern cities--as well as in San Francisco--in the 18th and into the 19th centuries. So it missed that stage of great local philanthropists, who felt some civic loyalty to the community. Also, L.A.--and again this is speculative--is a city consisting of a lot of small communities that aren’t well integrated. There’s a severe fragmentation in the L.A. area, which probably contributes to somewhat lower levels of giving.

Q: Your study revealed that pattern among Sun Belt cities. Why is that?

A: It’s very possible there hasn’t been the buildup of civic loyalty, a strong civic pride as a metropolitan area--which is true of many Sun Belt cities. It’s partly the greater mobility. There hasn’t devel- oped a culture of giving, of civic responsibility. People don’t feel connected, loyal to the city. It’s more transitory, not as connected to its soul.

Q: But San Francisco is near the top of the list. Why?

A: L.A. is politically more conservative. Conservatives give less than liberals. There is, perhaps, less of a centralized civic life in L.A. than in San Francisco. I think this is probably reflected in people’s loyalty to institutions and willingness to support them. I think that is present in the Bay Area to a higher degree than in Southern California.

Q: Which California communities does L.A. most resemble in its charitable giving

A: The pattern of L.A. was relatively similar to San Diego and in Orange County and in some of the metropolitan areas of the Valley. Also, San Jose. At least that’s what the data showed.

Q: What other factors would contribute to these low numbers for L.A.?

A: Metropolitan areas that had corporate headquarters of many Fortune 500 companies in their downtown areas had much higher levels of contribution than those that don’t. In comparison to New York, Chicago and San Francisco, Los Angeles has somewhat fewer. So, undoubtedly, a vital downtown that includes cultural institutions, nonprofit hospitals with good reputations, probably attract a higher level of civic interest and, therefore, a greater level of contributions. Also, where downtown corporate entities reflect multinationals or foreign-owned corporations, there is significantly less civic participation and charitable giving than when there are home-grown corporations whose owners feel as if they want to return something to the community.

Q: Where would L.A.’s large immigrant population fit into the pattern?

A: Immigrant groups vary a great deal in their charitable habits. It depends greatly on the charitable traditions that existed in the nation from which they came. Immigrants who come from countries which really don’t have charitable giving, or a nonprofit sector, don’t have that experience. But we generally find that immigrant groups give within their own groups, and don’t give across.

Q: Since your study reflected major established charities--like the Red Cross, the Jewish Federation, AmFar, the Kidney Foundation--and L.A. has a significant immigrant population, could the figures be skewed?

A: The data I used may not reveal certain giving patterns. Many immigrant groups have informal ways of helping others in their community that never really show up in the statistics. For example, there could be self-help within Mexican or Korean families. This help is not tax deductible and is not reported in the data.

Q: But you maintain that the overall pattern is valid, that L.A. giving is low, no matter where the money is going. Is that true?

A: Definitely. The basic fact is that L.A. is lower on the scale of philanthropy. The income-tax returns reflect that.

Q: You’re concerned about the GOP’s “contract with America.” Why, in the context of your study?

A: The reasons for undertaking this study, to begin with, was to try to understand what was likely to happen if the federal government were to reduce its safety-net coverage and level of responsibility for the most vulnerable part of the population. The study reveals that places around the country vary a great deal not only in the charitable giving of people, but in the generosity of their state and local government programs.

Q: How much do states differ in their generosity toward the needy?

A: The differences are profound. The study revealed great disparities in state levels of generosity. And this is, I suppose, what worries not only me but lots of critics of this devolution experiment of the “contract with America.” Of what will happen when the states are given much greater control over such programs as AFDC and the Medicaid program. And how adequately will the states take care of this population--which, up until now, has been dependent upon federal safety nets?

Q: And charities, you say, cannot compensate for the cutbacks, especially in the face of regional differences?

A: We already know that charities do not have enough funding--even if all of the contributions, instead of going to museums and hospitals and universities, were all to be targeted to try to make up for the cuts in the current budget proposal. . . . And any severe change of targeting--that is, redirection of charitable giving--would undermine the current support for a whole set of services in communities that are very important and valuable.

Q: So, you are saying there is a basic flaw in the blueprint of the “contract with America”?

A: Rather than starting this revolution so hastily, it would have helped to have some evaluation studies, assessments and demonstrations to see whether or not the changes that they proposed really will have a better impact. The fact that they didn’t, the fact that their revolution is based on assumptions that have never been tested, really implies that their agenda is more fiscal than moral.

Q: What is your prognosis for the effects of cutbacks and transfers?

A: The full impact won’t be felt until probably more than a year; and the effects, if the programs are instituted, will be cumulative. And, so, we will get the most severe impact closer to the year 2000, and afterward.

Q: Severity, like what?

A: Greater homelessness, greater nutritional problems, fewer people getting job training that is enabling them to get decent jobs, fewer beds in nursing homes under the Medicaid program--those are the programs that are likely to go. Many more people pushed from the welfare rolls. Reduced funding for some of the population that is receiving Supplemental Security Income. That is where the cuts are likely to be most severe, and that’s where we will have the real test of what the states can or will do to make up for these federal cuts.

Q: What about California?

A: Up until recently, California had a very good record in its public-sector generosity. The level of AFDC payments to households was much higher in the state of California, relative to per-capita income, than in most other states. Some of the cuts in the current budget proposal in this Congress would reduce the funding available for immigrant absorption, it would reduce the eligibility of lots of people who are now on welfare. We’re very concerned that states like California, which have been generous in the past, might feel they can’t afford to be quite as generous any longer. The burden of state taxes is so high, and California is in danger of losing more industry to neighboring states like Arizona and Nevada, whose public sector is less generous.

Q: So charities can’t provide a safety net?

A: The fallacy is that the net will be maintained by charities, as well as states; that there are no Scrooges out there; that states and the charities will not let people go destitute. The charities will do what they can, but the magnitude of cuts would require increasing the level of contributions by 35 times in order to make up the difference. That is clearly impossible. Charitable giving has remained stable for half a century at just less than 2% of personal income.

Q: Is there any way to stop a train that seems to be moving on a track that is unstoppable, based on overwhelming sentiment, to cutback on the needy?

A: I suspect not. Most of the impact of these cuts probably will not be felt until after the election next year. It’s not as if we are going to be witnessing the impact in time for them to be part of the political campaign. I suspect that it will take levels of suffering, like those that helped to initiate the Great Society programs. Becoming aware that there was true hunger occurring in parts of Mississippi, that the level of need in Appalachia was so severe that it overwhelmed what local people could do. The AIDS-afflicted dying for lack of care or shelter in Los Angeles. I suspect it might almost take that to have a real reversal in this attack on our most vulnerable neighbors.*