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, 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 from WalletHub about a study on “caring” in U.S. cities, assessing 100 cities across 38 indicators in three dimensions: caring for the community, vulnerable populations, and workforce. Key findings highlighted Boston as the top city overall, excelling in workforce metrics, while Scottsdale balanced strong community and vulnerable care despite low workforce rankings. Factors like poverty, violent crime, childcare, and paid family leave significantly impacted rankings. The study emphasized the role of data-driven metrics over religious or faith-based contributions. Lupo noted demographic differences shaped cities’ standings, and Jacobsen appreciated WalletHub’s professional approach.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, once again, we are here with Chip Lupo from WalletHub. How do we define “caring” in this particular study?
Chip Lupo: Well, Scott, caring involves more than just donating money. Financial contributions are a significant part of it, as Americans donated nearly $560 billion last year. While that sounds like a lot, when adjusted for inflation, it represented about a 2.1% decline in donations.
However, beyond financial contributions, there are other ways in which communities can be considered caring. This concept refers to the often-referenced idea of “time, talent, and treasure.” People can volunteer their time and expertise in addition to financial support.
This study compared the 100 largest U.S. cities across 38 key indicators to develop a “compassionate spirit.” These indicators range from the share of sheltered homeless people to volunteering hours per capita and the percentage of income donated to charity.
Jacobsen: Now, why are Virginia Beach, Virginia; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Boston, Massachusetts, ranked as the most caring cities? What stands out about them?
Lupo: As I mentioned earlier, caring encompasses more than monetary donations. It is evaluated across three dimensions: caring for the community, the vulnerable, and the workforce. However, Virginia Beach, Scottsdale, and Boston ranked highly across these dimensions, with some notable differences.
For example, Scottsdale, Arizona, ranked 93rd in the “caring for the workforce” category. To put this into context, Scottsdale is primarily a retirement-oriented community. Retired residents often have more time and resources to contribute through donations and volunteering, but the city does not rank highly in workforce-related metrics.
For instance, in Scottsdale, the availability of special education teachers for school-age children with disabilities ranked 97th, and teachers’ care for students’ well-being also ranked poorly. These rankings reflect the city’s older demographic, with many residents in retirement years.
On the other hand, Boston excelled in the “caring for the workforce” dimension, ranking first overall. Boston residents ranked number one in several metrics, including community and social services roles, physicians per capita, special education teachers, and teachers’ care for students’ well-being.
Scottsdale balances its low workforce metrics with strong rankings in the other two dimensions—second in “caring for the vulnerable” and third in “caring for the community.” To be considered one of the top caring cities, a city must maintain a balance across all three dimensions, and Scottsdale achieves this despite its workforce limitations.
And where Scottsdale, Arizona, is its weakest, it makes up for it on the other end of the spectrum. Virginia Beach and Boston are fairly consistent across all dimensions, and Boston ranked number one overall in caring for the workforce.
Jacobsen: I like your standardized presentation of the information—it’s quite helpful.
Fort Wayne has the highest share of income donated, Baltimore ranks highest in volunteer hours, and Jacksonville leads in the share of residents who do favours for neighbours. In one of our prior interviews, we talked about religious giving and community building as part of helping people in need in one of your studies. Is that also a factor in being considered a caring city? Do religious institutions and charities play a big role there, too?
Lupo: For these purposes, this is more data-driven, but to some degree, religious and faith-based organizations do have some weight. However, this study primarily relies on government data, though we cite sources like the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Most of the data comes from government sources, such as AmeriCorps, focusing more on volunteer nonprofits than faith-based ones. We have separate studies documenting where religion, churches, and faith-based charities come into play.
For these purposes, it’s primarily data-driven.
Jacobsen: Certain metrics carry significant weight, particularly within the “caring for the vulnerable” dimension. For example, the child and adult poverty rates were given quadruple weight. Rehabilitation centers in the same larger category were given half weight, and shelters for people experiencing homelessness were given double weight. A quadruple weight is quite significant compared to other metrics. Why was poverty given such a high weight?
Lupo: Poverty is one of the most critical factors in children’s and adults’ vulnerability. It encompasses a range of challenges, but it boils down to being one of the most crucial indicators of need.
If you live in an area with low poverty, there will naturally be fewer critical needs regarding donations and support. However, poverty—particularly child poverty—is a bigger issue in areas with limited resources, which impacts how much time and money communities can contribute toward vulnerable populations.
Poverty is also a relative term, as the threshold varies depending on where you live. Cities like Memphis, Baton Rouge, and Birmingham rank fairly low due to the prevalence of low-income areas for children and adults.
When weighed against other factors in the “caring for the vulnerable” dimension, poverty consistently emerges as the key driver. It holds more weight than other important metrics like uninsured rates, animal protection laws, or the share of sheltered homeless populations. Because of their critical importance, both child and adult poverty rates are given a quadruple weight.
Jacobsen: What stood out was the ratio of childcare workers to the total number of children. Metrics like firefighters per capita and paramedics per capita seem more intuitive, but childcare worker availability is just as significant in community care.
When it comes to childcare workers, what is that metric in your particular study? Childcare workers per number of children are given full weight under “caring in the workforce.” Is it sort of a measure to offset the challenges professional people face in ensuring care for their children while working?
Lupo: You summed that up perfectly.
I was going to give Scottsdale, Arizona, as an example. We talked about Scottsdale being more retirement-driven. That number is so low because there isn’t as much need. Many of the population doesn’t have children in school or full-time jobs, which diminishes the demand for childcare workers.
But yes, what you said earlier sums it up. It’s about attending to children’s basic needs—dressing, bathing, feeding, overseeing play, and helping prepare them for kindergarten—while their parents are working. In areas where the population is more retirement-based, there’s naturally less of a need for childcare, which is why it would fall under the workforce dimension and be given full weight.
Jacobsen: Something that seems counterintuitive is animal protection laws. How do they provide a basis for “caring” under the “caring for the vulnerable” category? Are we talking about vulnerable people and endangered animals as well?
Lupo: Correct. Animals, for the most part, are considered vulnerable. Many of them are pets for children and adults, so being able to care for animals—whether stamping out animal abuse or caring for strays and feral animals—is part of addressing vulnerability.
Animals are often more defenceless than people. They often can’t protect themselves, so they fall into this category. There’s also a sentimental attachment involved, as pets can be integral to a family’s emotional well-being. And I say this as someone who has five cats!
Jacobsen: I can relate. I used to work with horses and had two cats for about 17 or 18 years each.
Lupo: Wow!
Jacobsen: Unfortunately, I lost both of them. One of them passed away while I was travelling in Ukraine doing some war journalism.
Lupo: I’m so sorry to hear that.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Another thing that comes to mind is paid family leave. I remember hearing about its availability during a speech at a World Humanist Congress in Iceland. The president of Iceland talked about their policy on maternal and paternal family leave, which provides equal time for both parents to alternate their leave if they wish.
I found that fascinating because, as you may know, the World Economic Forum has ranked Iceland the most gender-equal country globally for over a decade. I am curious about Iceland’s history and the choices that set it apart from many other countries. It can’t just be the fact that it’s a small state and can maneuver easily. There must be deeper, structural reasons for its success.
Lupo: Absolutely, that would be worth exploring further.
Jacobsen: It could be other things, too, right? I think paid family leave should be weighted even more than full under the “caring for the vulnerable” subcategory. But I understand why it’s given at least full weight.
Was there any consideration of giving it more weight, or was full weight the first choice?
Lupo: In the U.S., paid family leave is still a relatively new concept compared to the rest of the modernized world. It has only been on the legislative radar for 30 years as family demographics have shifted. Given its relative newness, full weight is fair. Additionally, there are still states tweaking or adopting new policies.
Let’s go back to Scottsdale, Arizona, as an example. In our metric for the availability of paid family leave, we gave a score of zero to states or cities that don’t have paid family leave policies. Scottsdale is one of those cities with a zero score because no paid family leave policies are in place. As mentioned several times during this conversation, Scottsdale’s demographic is primarily retirement-oriented.
On the other hand, Boston ranks first in the availability of paid family leave, representing the opposite end of the spectrum. I suspect that within a generation or so, we’ll see paid family leave on a more level playing field across all 50 states. If not at the city level, there will likely be state-level policies that provide broader access to paid family leave.
Jacobsen: Another metric that stood out to me is the violent crime rate, which was given a quadruple weight under “caring for the community.” How significantly did you find violent crime rates in your research, particularly regarding their impact on people’s ability to care?
Lupo: Violent crime rates are highly significant. They directly impact trust and safety, crucial for fostering a caring community. When violent crime rates are high, it creates an environment of low trust.
Low trust and concerns about safety discourage people from engaging in volunteer work. For instance, activities like volunteering outside a shopping center, going door-to-door for community service, or any initiatives that require being out in the community become less appealing or feasible. It’s not just about trust—it’s also a safety issue, which significantly affects people’s willingness to contribute to their communities.
Those with high violent crime rates tend to fall lower in our rankings.
Jacobsen: What was the most significant finding from this particular research study?
Lupo: The contrast between the top three cities stood out the most. As discussed, Scottsdale ranks second overall but is 93rd in “caring for the workforce.” That speaks volumes.
Looking at the rankings from top to bottom provides perspective. The bottom half of cities, like Memphis, Tennessee, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Birmingham, Alabama, consistently perform low across all dimensions.
On the other hand, Boston, while ranked first overall in caring, is behind Scottsdale in specific areas. For example, Boston ranks 14th in “caring for the community” and 14th in “caring for the vulnerable.” These are still solid numbers, but the contrast between Scottsdale’s second-place ranking overall and its 93rd-place ranking in workforce metrics highlights the influence of unique demographic factors.
Jacobsen: Well, Chip, that’s all I have for today. I appreciate your time, as always.
Lupo: Oh, sure, my pleasure. We make ourselves available, especially during the challenging period between Christmas and New Year when it can be frustrating to get hold of people. I’m fortunate only to need to take a few steps to my home studio, so it’s not a problem. It’s a pleasure to do this for you.
That’s great.
Jacobsen: I like the work you do. It’s clean, well-presented, and professional.
Lupo: Of course. Thank you, and Happy New Year!
Jacobsen: Happy New Year to you, too. Bye.
—
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (ISSN 2369–6885). He is a Freelance, Independent Journalist with the Canadian Association of Journalists in Good Standing, a Member of PEN Canada, and a Writer for The Good Men Project. Email: [email protected].
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash
