By Alexander Reid, Globe Staff, 12/1/2002

Massachusetts is always noted for its wealth of history, culture, and politics when compared to most other states, but in 1997 the Bay State held the title to a distinction of far lesser repute.

The state placed 50th in a national survey on charitable giving - far behind places like Arkansas, South Dakota, and Mississippi, states where the household incomes are usually the lowest in the country.

Since then Massachusetts has climbed to the 44th spot. And while this climb does not mean that Massachusetts residents have become loose with their money, it does help deflate the opinion that New Englanders are tight.

It also indicates the progress of a strategy launched five years ago by trustees of the Ellis L. Phillips Foundation, which produces the survey, a so-called generosity index, to encourage a more generous mindset among those with the deepest pockets.

This year the foundation added a new wrinkle for Massachusetts. It applied the generosity index on a local level, measuring charitable giving town by town.

''People are used to drawing comparisons to their neighbors by looking at property taxes, real estate values, and MCAS scores,'' said George McCully, a foundation trustee and chief coordinator for the project. ''Now we can see who's more generous.''

Northwest of Boston, the index rates Concord as the community with the most generous residents. Tyngsborough, Lexington, and Winchester follow.

The essence of the foundation's strategy is contained in a booklet with the names of organizations and people - social workers, parents, children, homeless men, and teenagers - from all corners of the state who are connected to a long list of charities, including shelters, food pantries, youth centers, and museums.

This booklet, called the ''Catalogue for Philanthropy, '' is mailed every October to each household in Massachusetts with an income greater than $150,000, according to McCully.

In addition to the names of a few dozen charities, the catalog lists other important details like their histories, missions, directors, phone numbers, and addresses. The idea is to personalize the charity by giving donors a sense of who their benefactors are and what the money will be used for, said McCully, a Dover resident and former college history professor.

''This way a family can sit down, read about these groups and what their needs are before writing a check,'' he said. ''Much of the time when people are donating money to charity, they just write a check and pop it in the mail - it's like dropping a stone into the ocean. This makes the giving a more personal experience.''

The charities selected serve both cultural and human service organizations. Their budgets are small - less than $2 million - when compared to the charitable groups that are more well known and are large enough to run their own mailings.

''These are the little guys,'' said McCully. ''They don't have much visibility, and they are under the radar. All we require is that they be small, excellent, and interesting.''

Their backgrounds vary. There is the Community Therapeutic Day School in Lexington, a program for children with severe emotional and neurological difficulties, and the One Lowell Coalition, an organization that helps immigrants assimilate into community life. Aggassiz Village, a summer camp for disadvantaged youths from metropolitan Boston appeared in the 2000 catalog.

Lisa Gillis, executive director for the Community Therapeutic Day School, said the agency received $36,000 in donations following its debut in the catalog. ''The catalog certainly gave us a boost,'' said Gillis. ''It gave us visibility. It told people about us and where we are.''

McCully's national generosity ranking system is based on a formula that uses data supplied by the Internal Revenue Service from income tax returns, including information on adjusted gross incomes and itemized charitable deductions.

While the index has been a successful way to coax more generous donations, it is not without its critics. Researchers at the Social Welfare Research Institute at Boston College say it is a flawed measure.

''It's potentially invalid,'' said John Havens, a senior research associate at the institute. ''Using his method it's impossible for the highest-income state to ever be ranked above 25, and it's impossible for the lowest states to be below 25. I support charitable giving, but the math here is wrong.''

McCully, who has heard this criticism before and disputed it, responded: ''This is not science, it's education, and giving is going up.''

One group that would agree with this assessment is Acre Family Day Care in Lowell. The agency, which began as a research project by students at the University of Lowell, trains mothers to run day-care businesses in their homes. After appearing in the 2000 catalog, it received $100,000 from a private donor.

''It was like money from heaven,'' said Kristen Westloh, a director at Acre Family Day Care. ''The people who gave us the money would not have known about us, if they hadn't seen us in the catalog. After we received the money, they came here for a visit and talked with the mothers and the staff. They were moved by the whole experience. We loved it.''

This story ran on page N1 of the Boston Globe on 12/1/2002.