Funding advocacy


Image by Abscent84

A quick shout out about Philanthropy Australia’s recent publication – The Power of Advocacy: Making the Case for Philanthropic Support for Advocacy.

Published in February, this handy guide reiterates the case for philanthropic organisations’ ability to be active in the advocacy space since the AidWatch decision in 2010 and the new definitions provided in the Charities Act (2013).

The report explains “what policy advocacy is, outlines the rationale for philanthropy funding policy advocacy, sets out the law regarding funding policy advocacy, addresses some misconceptions, and presents eight case studies of philanthropy funding policy advocacy”.

Ozphilanthropy wrote about funding advocacy back in 2014, so it is great to see that Philanthropy Australia has now developed an easy to access reference which draws on some of the earlier work in this area, especially that undertaken by the Reichstein Foundation.

Congratulations to Krystian Seibert for this piece.

D’oh – I pressed publish too soon – just found the best quote in favour of advocacy in philanthropy  – “it is essential to recognise that philanthropy is inherently political and value-laden. While charity focuses on addressing the symptoms of a problem,  philanthropy tries to address root causes and advocates for policy and social change“.  This is in a chapter by Tobias Jung and Jenny Harrow entitled Providing Foundations: pilanthropy, global policy and administration in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook on Global Public Policy and Transnational Administration (edited by Stone & Moloney).


PS: ozphilanthropy’s author is currently enrolled in a PhD as a provisional candidate at Swinburne supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Posted in advocacy, engaged philanthropy, grantmaking, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Women & Philanthropy

PressforProgress-IWD2018 There is a buzz happening around women and philanthropy.  Whether someone’s capacity to donate is $100 or $1,000,000, there are opportunities to contribute individually or collectively to support charitable causes and organisations focussed on women and girls.

The Victorian Women’s Trust (VWT) was one of the first philanthropic organisations in Australia to focus on women’s’ needs, advocate for women and girls, and work towards a more equal future.  They have a range of sub-funds where donors can contribute to investing in women and girls in areas ranging from support for indigenous women fleeing family violence, understanding respectful relationships, women’s choirs, to assistance for vulnerable older women.

VWT’s Gender lens for inclusive philanthropy written in 2009 is still a relevant read describing the gender lens as “helping us see more clearly the role gender plays in shaping our male and female lives, our work, experience and choices. When gender differences are identified and responded to in grant making, philanthropy becomes more inclusive. When the complexities of gender inequality are understood and addressed, philanthropy becomes more potent. And when those issues and circumstances are identified where it makes sense to invest directly in women and girls because of the flow on effects to children, families and communities, philanthropy has even greater impact.”

The Australian Women’s Donors Network also advocates for greater investment in women and girls and their gender lens toolkit provides a snapshot of the existing disadvantage experienced by women locally and globally and maps out a step-by-step guide for donors and funders on how to review and apply a gender lens to giving.

The Giving Australia 2016 report notes a growing awareness among philanthropists and donors of the gender lens, and its usefulness in developing greater sophistication and understanding of issues in grant making, showing how people are differently affected by issues, stronger program design, and better outcomes for families and communities when women are supported.

The Melbourne Women’s Fund is a collective giving circle which encourages women to pool financial, intellectual, professional and personal resources to benefit groups and organisations dealing with issues that undermine the quality of life and futures of women and families.  Each member commits $1000 per year and has a vote on where the funds are distributed.  In four years they have granted $500,000 to organisations dealing with issues such as supporting older women struggling with poverty, early intervention for women in the criminal justice system and breaking the cycle of disadvantage for young girls.

Capital Giving in Canberra (formerly ACT of Women Giving) enables members to increase the impact of their individual donations through the multiplier effect of being part of a group.  Capital Giving has supported initiatives such as micro-finance support for women, and a mentorship program for girls, trans and non-binary young people aged 10-17 years.

Other collective giving initiatives focussed on women include Women and Change in Queensland, which encourages 50 women to contribute $1000 each towards one major grant each year and  100Women WA has given out 13 grants in four years totalling more than $400,000 and sums up what most of the above-mentioned organisations are doing as “enabling everyday people to be involved in creating a world where all women and girls can live safely with access to health, education and economic freedom.  This is achieved by combining donations and knowledge to provide impactful grants.”

While not specifically female focussed, the Funding Network community of donors who use a live crowdfunding model to pledge support for highlighted organisations will hold a women and girls focussed event in Melbourne this year.

Australia is connected to the international growth in support for women and girls through Women Moving Millions which was introduced by the Australian Women Donors Network in Melbourne and Sydney. This international women’s funding network encourages donors to commit $1 million over 10 years to projects and organisations focused on the advancement of women and girls.  There are now eight donors based in Australia, and this has directly led to the establishment of the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia which aims to catalyse and inspire innovative partnerships, action and system-changing solutions to achieve gender balanced representation in Australia.

And finally, the peak body for philanthropy in Australia, Philanthropy Australia has recently established a Women and Girls Funders group as one of their peer network groups.

The range of support for philanthropic initiatives and support for women is growing, but still only makes up a tiny portion of philanthropic granting.  As of 2011 only 7% of the philanthropic dollar went specifically to women and girls* so while there is growing awareness and more visible activity, there is still room in this space for amazing things to happen and for everyone to #pressforprogress.

*Women Moving Millions – All in for Her, A Call to Action

PS: check outGiving by and For Women: Understanding High Net Worth Donor’s Support for Women and Girls by the Women’s Philanthropy Unit at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy

NB: This piece was written for QUT’s Business Insights for International Women’s Day 2018.

Posted in donate, engaged philanthropy, grantmaking, philanthropy, women and philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Gillian Triggs at Melbourne Women’s Fund Forum

Gillian Triggs

Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs was the keynote speaker at the Melbourne Women’s Fund inaugural forum held in Melbourne.

Professor Triggs spoke of having grown up post-war, as a baby-boomer, given a free legal education and becoming a practising barrister at 22.  This was an optimistic age and she was influenced by Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own which with absolute clarity and no weasel words stressed the importance of financial autonomy for women. (Financial autonomy and independence – and especially superannuation, was to be a key theme throughout the Forum).

Professor Triggs believes that economic empowerment is crucial for strong societies and strong communities, and sees health, housing and employment as legal rights.  She also believes that human rights for women, children as well as men are good for business.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Index measures where countries stand in relation to these rights.  Australia has dropped from 15th place to 46th (behind Rwanda, Burundi and Nicaragua).  The Index compares economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment.  It is not just that in Australia only 25.4% of board members on the ASX200 are women and that women retire with on average 46% of the superannuation balances of men.  What is striking is that Australia ranks No 1 for educational attainment for women yet the highest growing poplation of homeless people here is women over 55.

Professor Triggs noted that the spirit of equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunity of the early 1960s has been lost. There had been a view that if women had education they would be able to resolve all other problems, but even this week, a report by Plan International on the attitudes of young women has shown a growing loss of confidence, a drop in ambition and declining mental health.  98% of the young women and girls surveyed believed they are treated differently to boys.

Professor Triggs referred to the high standards of “evidence” required to support advocacy for “women’s issues”, noting the criticism of the recent Human Rights Commission report on sexual assault on university campuses.  Despite having been approved by 39 Vice-Chancellors (in itself no mean feat) and with more than 39,000 respondents to a survey and 2,000 submissions provided in writing, parts of the press doubted the methodology of the findings and in doing so attempted to diminish the report’s significance.

For Professor Triggs, the optimisim of the1960s has not delivered what her generation had hoped.  Society ignores the productivity supported by women through unpaid caring responsibilities, has imposed high costs of child care and reduced women’s career opportunities through the development of casual, contract and gig economy employment.  Structural issues such as changes in penalty rates will further penalise women who had been its main beneficiaries.

Occupational and industry segregation still exists and barriers such as non family-friendly workplaces also prevent women’s full economic participation.

The phenomenon of “post truth” is a concern.  While there has always been spin and propaganda, for Professor Triggs, the issue now is that we are starting to believe it. “Alternative facts” is an absurb proposition, yet false news is increasingly pervasive and informing people’s positions.  Professor Triggs referred to Jennifer Hochschild’s Do Facts Matter which posits that the danger of post truth is that you get political benefit by muddying the waters (eg – by mixing the issue of religious freedom with the same-sex postal survey).

There is also the strange phenomenon of raising an issue, proposing a solution, and then accusing women of manipulating the process (the maternity leave double-dipping fiasco).  The result of this is that women have now lost 18 weeks paid maternity leave – due to lies.

Professor Triggs spoke about domestic violence and the clear link between social disadvantage and vulnerability to violence.  While the government is now rolling out a $100 million package to stop violence against women, this is not enough for structural change, particularly while the government is cutting funding for refuges and defunding community legal centers.

Professor Triggs views these issues through the prism of human rights (not surprising given her background), and referred to the Beijing Platform for Action. A difficulty in Australia is that although Australia is a signatory to many international human rights treaties, these have not been passed into Australian law. This then affects women, children and families in many ways.  Professor Triggs noted that it was fortunate that we at least have the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984.

Other issues still to be addressed include the UN sustainable development goals, which call for gender equality by 2030.  While aspirations are important, strategies, plans and leadership are also needed.

There are also initiatives for women’s economic empowerment championed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  The IMF recently published research Banking on Women Leaders and wants to double its lending to women from $1billion to $2billion as well as develop new financial tools for women in emerging markets.  (Consider this – in Myanmar, less than 10% of women have a bank account).

And progress is happening in Indonesia, where the country is considering allowing working women to file tax returns independent of their husbands.

So what is happening in Australia?  According to Professor Triggs – not very much.  We have no national action plan for women in relation to finance, only abstract and high level objectives.  Although we have an Office for Women, there is no dedicated Minister at the Federal level, and the Office for Women has a miniscule budget of $3million which is trivial if it is to address major problems.

There’s the Women’s Money Tool Kit as part of ASIC’s MoneySmart website, but we need to do more to work more closely with women.

The conservative press considers women’s issues to be “identity politics” (I could include a link here, but don’t want to give the Hun more web hits).

So while there is a bit of doom and gloom, and there is a challenge to bring work down to a level where it will have an impact – there is something we can all do.

Professor Triggs took us back to the other literary influence of her earlier years – Germaine Greer.  She suggests we should be more aggressive and bolder, speak up more clearly and push back against “alternative truths”, present our arguments with evidence, and even be more vulgar -because “we have played the game for far too long“.

Who is with us?

A couple of questions from the audience:

Q: from the Australian Women Donors Network: “Where are we on progress vs pushback?”

A: there is real pushback in the media and manifest in the statistics – we need to produce strong statistics and spokespersons to speak up in these dangerous times where civil society is retreating from advocacy – especially in the case of community legal centres who are no longer able to stand up and speak.  Our freedom of speech is being curtailed and there needs to be accurate, measured balance.  Attention to detail in research methodology is important or the media will refute it.

Q: from Sisterworks: from the perspective of an advocate for women dependent on welfare and working in the social sector, there is a gap where people are struggling to do their best, but they don’t have the means.

A: Women need higher levels of economic stability and women need to have public voices (like Anne Summers, Liz Broderick and Rosie Batty). How have we allowed things to get to this point?  Professor Triggs made the point that if the 70 women killed by their partners each year had instead been killed by terrorists, the government would be throwing money at the issue.

ozphilanthropy attended the Melbourne Women’s Fund Forum as a guest of the Melbourne Women’s Fund.


Posted in advocacy, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

American Vertigo: Philanthropy & Democracy in Uncertain Times


Mae Hong, from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers (whom she calls the “poor cousins of the Rockefeller Foundation”) was in Australia for a second tour with Australian Executor Trustees (who brought her out last year).

She gave talks in Melbourne and Sydney on how philanthropy is adapting to the
new regime in the US – hence the title of her talk and this post – American Vertigo: Philanthropy & Democracy in Uncertain Times.

Mae feels that the biggest surprise of the US election was that so many people were so surprised, even though Lewis Lapham predicted that the US was moving towards populism and its simmering malcontent thirty years ago. The idea that since the end of the Cold War, greed and hedonism have taken such hold as to secure favourable tax benefits, policies and concessions for the wealthy few is still not widely held. Yet, in Mae’s view, the country has become a plutocracy where the poor have no power or influence, the government has been weakened fiscally and has no legitimacy, and the system works against the people.

There is chronic under-investment in the public good and inequality is the new global threat. (The eight richest people in the world have the same wealth as the bottom half
that is $3,600,000,000 people).

So where does that leave philanthropy and civil society? Mae says that civil society and the voluntary sector are now the new guardians of the public good while the very wealthy are exercising their own agendas. Big philanthropists like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation set their own policy priorities (but who voted them in?).

Mae sees philanthropy’s role as a counterbalance and talked about the democratisation of philanthropy and new ways to give (yes giving circles), crowdfunding and ordinary citizens exercising their voice. There has been a seismic shift in the relationship between money and power – and also an inverted meaning of public and private. Remember when public was inherently good – the public service & public hospitals? But in the 80s this was inverted and private became the new beautiful (private planes, private personal trainers, private schools).

So what does this mean for democracy? This talk took me back to the recent presentation by Lucy Bernholz and Rob Reich on Philanthropy and Democratic Societies and last year’s presentation by the Reichstein Foundation on the Imperialism of Economics with Dr Edward Nik-Khah. There seems to be a bit of a theme developing. Is protest the new brunch?

Responses to changes in the political climate have invoked new terms like “rage giving” – where people voice to their disapproval by supporting causes which have been downgraded or derided by the government, such as Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) who raised $100s of millions of dollars after the US election – (think of the recent boost to Dress Like a Girl after the comments from Cory Bernardi). Foundations have redirected $700 million to respond to Trump’s policies creating rapid response funds and critical response funds. They want to be nimble, and some companies(Paypal and Apple Pay) are blocking funds to hate groups. No platforms are neutral anymore. “If you aren’t against something you are for it – and silence is consent”.

The military developed a term – VUCA – which stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity – and Mae says this is the new normal. Everything is connected – in unpredictable ways – the 2006 “Tortilla Riots” apparently sparked by corn being produced for ethanol rather than food following 3000 oil wells being taken out of commission by Hurricane Katrina (and making the price of corn in Mexico jump 400%), Walmart selling cashmere sweaters for $20 leading to more goat farming in China leading to sandstorms.

So we need to build better shock absorbers, better resilience and maintain who we are when conditions are radically changed. Mae suggests we replace VUCA with VUCA – vision, understanding, clarity and adaptation (resilient design).

Mae concluded with a quote from Maya Angelou’s essay The Sweetness of Charity, in which she says that charity “liberates the soul of the giver” and that with each gift, we strengthen the pillars of the world.

What do you think?  Does philanthropy need to be more accountable?  How can we best deal with the new disruptions in society and the economy?  I look forward to your thoughts.

Posted in advocacy, donate, engaged philanthropy, grantmaking, philanthropy, social action | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A bit more on collective giving


Just in case you missed it, the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership commissioned Creative Partnerships Australia to write a report on collective giving.

I am thinking that this is more because James Boyd, the report’s co-author, is an expert in collective giving, having established the first Impact100 group in Australia – in Western Australia, rather than it being something particular to the arts community.

It has an overview on the state of collective giving in the US, UK and Asia as well as here, provides some insight into the demographics of current members, and discusses some of the issues and challenges giving groups are facing.

It discusses motivations for joining, operational and structural differences, and reports on positive feedback from the charities involved.

You can read Collective Giving and Its Role in Philanthropy here and don’t forget that several of the collective giving groups are still recruiting members for this year, and will be distributing their grants in November, so it’s not too late to become involved.


Posted in donate, grantmaking, philanthropy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Philanthropy & Democratic Societies

democracy.jpgPerpetual Ltd presented a session on Philanthropy and Democratic Societies at the State Library of Victoria with a panel comprised of Krystian Seibert from Philanthropy Australia, Lucy Bernholz, philanthropy and data expert, Bill Birnbauer, investigative journalist and Rob Reich, Faculty Co-Director, Stanford Centre on Philanthropy and Civil Society – hosted by Caitriona Fay, National Manager, Philanthropy and Non-profit Services, Perpetual.

Lucy and Rob are two of the co-editors of a new publication: Philanthropy in Democratic Societies: History, Institutions, Values.

Caitriona introduced the session with the story of Perpetual’s oldest charitable trust – coming in at 128 years – the Edith Campbell-Walker Trust – which was set up to provide housing for women – especially those who had been in “house service” and which now supports women moving away from domestic violence.  With a nod towards the dead hand from the grave, she noted that this Trust had a deed  which enabled it to adapt to the needs of the times, while still honouring the intent of the donor.  That said Caitriona acknowledged that there can be a difference between “good philanthropy” and “bad philanthropy”, especially given the power imbalance which exists between donors, bequestors and grant applicants/supplicants.

Rob commenced the session started with a “provocation” around what he considers “bad philanthropy”, and for me, raised more questions than answers – though in a good way.

Rob gave a couple of different definitions of philanthropy.

a) the direction of private resources for some public benefit (ie money, time, blood, organs, data) and referred to Peter Singer’s moral argument that what most people give is far less than they should (see The Most Good You can Do: How Effective Altruism is changing ideas about Living Ethically).

b) considering the array of public policies which champion or hinder philanthropy from contributing to healthy democratic societies such as tax incentivisation of a liberty we are already free to take with our own money, and the legal codification of private foundations.

Rob then put forward several arguments as to why we should be very skeptical and suspicious of private foundations (in the spirit of provocation).


The Rockefeller Foundation – which in order to be established, required its own Bill from Congress, which was variously described as a “menace to democracy“, in its desire to use private wealth of influence public affairs.  Rob noted – large philanthropy is an exercise of power and deserves our scrutiny – not our gratitude.

The Gates Foundation – in funding schools – Bill Gates has been called the unelected “nation’s schools’ superintendent“.  Rob notes – large philanthropy is an exercise of unaccountable power (and deserves our scrutiny – not our gratitude).

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations – on an anecdote where staff couldn’t set priorities for the Foundation, it is said that George Soros said – “it’s my money, so we’ll do it my way”.  He was not happy to be reminded that but for the tax concessions available, 40% of the funds would belong to Treasury.  Rob calls this tax subsidised unaccountable power (and deserves our scrutiny – not our gratitude).

So his question is – why do democratic societies think that big philanthropy is a good idea?

Given this rather devastating critique of institutionalised generosity, Caitriona attempted to seek a view from the panel that would redeem philanthropy.

Rob noted that if philanthropy takes a long-term view with risks which were presented to the public for evaluation and approval (such as Carnegie’s experiment with public libraries), then the vice of big philanthropy can become a virtue.  He also suggested that perhaps there should be a minimum size for foundations – if one wants to put away an endowment of $500,000 – why not just write cheques to one’s charities of choice.

Another question – how does data fit into the future of philanthropy?

Lucy talked about how when you give money away – you have given it away, but that if you give data away, you still have it.  She mentioned the Digital Public Library of America and how being surrounded by digital data is a new resource which can affect our understanding of philanthropy in civil society.  However, despite the benefits of the digital space creating an opportunity to share information, Lucy seemed to be giving a warning about the platforms and infrastructure on which the information depends – which is held in private hands (of corporations) and subject to government scrutiny and monitoring.  Her question in relation to this is – where is the independent space for philanthropy?  She reminded  us of the ubiquitous park bench in spy movies where the protagonist meets someone for the purpose of an unmonitored, private conversation and noted that there are no park benches on the internet. Lucy tells us that today, the only unmonitored spaces in the digital world are public libraries.  (Net neutrality is not an area I have any understanding of, so I will leave it to you to look into this).

Moving from the park bench to the fourth estate, Caitriona asked about the role of philanthropy in journalism.  Bill talked about the move of mainstream journalists to work in the nonprofit sector following the market failure of journalism and its devastation by the internet, and wondered why journalism doesn’t fall under the Charities Act.

This led to a  reflection and a question about the current Treasury discussion paper on DGR and the government’s view of activist nonprofit organisations as disruptive, and its suggestion that advocacy should be limited.

Krystian noted that we haven’t really had a discussion about the power and influence of nonprofit organisations and recommended David Callahan’s The Givers: Wealth, Power & Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age.  Krystian noted the rather cynical view presented by the Treasury discussion paper, that environmental charities should limit themselves to work “downstream” – such as cleaning up environmental spills and damage to wildlife and plants, rather than addressing the causes of pollution to a river, which may relate to legislation, emissions guidelines and disposal of waste regulations.  He reminded us of the Aidwatch decision in 2010 which protects the rights of charitable organisations to undertake advocacy activities.

While democracy is a sign of a healthy civil society, Krystian also raised the tension between democractically elected government and organisations which may be encouraging democracy (even if they themselves are not democratically elected).  The example of LGBTQI rights in some countries, where the government and the general public wish to support the status quo (ie lack of rights) but foundations (such as Open Society) wish to challenge the democratic will of the people (for their own good, perhaps).  Thus demonstrating that philanthropy in a democratic society is a complicated issue.

A question from the audience on the ability of corporations to act as lobbyists without limitations, contrasted with the scope available for nonprofits.  Rob responded with “is expressing a political position a philanthropic act?”  He noted the work of Civicus which tracks the health of civil societies – particularly noting then there are changes in tax privileges and reporting requirements for nonprofits – and banning of international funding.

A question on the power of crowdfunding – the response is that the jury is still out – it is insecure and voluntary.  Rob suggests that people having to crowdfund in order to meet their own medical expenses is unacceptable (our taxes should pay for this) – but that raising funds towards arts projects is ok. (I think that this borders on a market deciding what is valuable argument which is always problematic because I don’t believe the market knows best).

Krystian cited Getup  which is not charitable but successful, and the Climate Council (abolished by the government, but reborn and refunded by the people) as examples of successful crowdfunding and demonstrating powerful case studies of what crowdfunding can achieve – the converse (cynical) argument is that if the Climate Council can be funded by crowdfunding – why did the government need to fund it in the first place?

An ethical dilemma question from the audience – if a donor for a particular charity could have solved the problem in question by not engaging in particular corporate action – and thus the donor is part of the problem – how can we work with them when we consider them to be responsible?  Rob talked about how people can make money legally, but perhaps not ethically and that charities should be aiming to make themselves redundant by preventing issues, rather than remediating them (as has been charity’s traditional role).

This is a long post – but I think that it was all worth recording.  It would be great to have feedback, comments, corrections and refutations to any positions taken as all too often many of us working in the philanthropy area carry on with our doing good – without stopping to look at the bigger picture.

Posted in corporate social responsibility, donate, effective altruism, engaged philanthropy, grantmaking, impact and measurement, Legislation, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DGR Reform

clock-time-to-discuss-image-nice-44612024The Treasury Department has called for submissions commenting on a new discussion paper around Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) reform.  Read the paper here.

Submissions are due by 4 August – as per the website – the discussion paper had 14 July as the deadline but there has been an extension.


Some Background

DGR has been around since 1915 and there are 51 different categories including 4 separate registers – for overseas aid, harm prevention, environmental organisations and cultural organisations.

There are no sunset clauses for most DGR organisations and eligibility is not regularly reviewed.  Some DGRS are also required to maintain a separate public fund, which creates further compliance obligations.

Some key points

The proposed changes suggested in the discussion paper do not relate to eligibility of DGR organisations, but focus on activities rather than purpose, and perhaps distressingly, suggest requiring environmental charities to spend 25% of their budgets on direct environmental remediation.  There is also a slightly punitive flavour to the wording around advocacy.

While this may not affect all charitable organisations, I am concerned that once we start singling out sectors for special treatment or scrutiny, then there is no telling how far restrictions may go for everyone else.

I encourage anyone with a direct interest in the DGR and nonprofit sector to put in a submission – even if only to address some of the points brought up – to show solidarity and to have your say.

A few organisations have been circulating some drafts for a unified response.  You can contact me directly if you would like to know about how to access these.

I look forward to seeing and hearing your comments on this – either to Treasury or here.

Posted in advocacy, donate, fundraising, Legislation, philanthropy, social action | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

11 local giving circles – find one near you


There has been phenomenal growth in giving circles in Australia recently, so here’s a handy list to help keep track.

Capital Giving (previously ACT of Women Giving)  Membership: $250, $500 or $1,000 – supporting advancing opportunities for women & girls through education or capacity building, social connection, career development, financial literacy or sport.

Impact100 Fremantle Membership: $1,000 – supporting Aboriginal Health and Wellbeing in 2017

Impact100 Melbourne  Membership: $1,000 – supporting education – promoting learning  – in 2017

Impact100 South Australia Membership: $1,000- supported positive outcomes for the youth (12 – 24 years) and/or mental health.  The 2016/2017 grant was awarded to Youth Opportunities Association SA

Impact100 Sydney  Membership: $1,000 – supported young people at risk.  The 2016 grant was awarded to Leichhardt Women’s Community Health Centre

Impact100 Sydney North Membership: $1,000 – supporting young people at risk in 2017

Impact100 Tasmania  Membership: $1,000 – grants open to any registered Tasmanian charity

Impact100 Western Australia Membership: $1,000 – grants across 5 focus areas – arts & culture, education, environment, family & community, health & wellness

Melbourne Womens Fund Membership: $1,000 x 3 years – grant applications by invitation, in health, education and wellbeing, benefitting women and families in greater metro Melbourne

The Channel, a giving circle Membership: $25, $50 or $100 per month – 2 circles – Haring (dgr) and Hampton (non dgr).  First grants round focussed on Brave Representations – growing representations of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and sex characteristics in Australian culture – the arts, media and beyond

Women and Change – Queensland’s first giving group.  Membership: $1,000.  2017 grant to a charitable organisation providing social welfare support to those in the community who are most disadvantaged.

So there’s no excuse, unless you are in the Northern Territory, there is a giving circle not far from you.  Check them out to join or apply for a grant.

Let us know if there are others who should be included on this list.



Posted in donate, fundraising, grantmaking, philanthropy, volunteering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Giving Australia 2016

Giving AustraliaThe Giving Australia 2016 reports, commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership, and researched and developed by QUT, Swinburne and the Centre for Social Impact, has now been completed.

Bite size portions are now available together with fact sheets, background papers and literature reviews (thanks Christopher, Wendy, Jo and your teams).

You can check out philanthropy and philanthropists, structured giving vehicles, bequests, individual volunteering, individual giving, what businesses think and the perspective of not for profit organisations.

This report has some comparisons to the research undertaken back in 2005 for the first ever Giving Australia national study.  Because so much has changed (and yet stayed the same) there are some points of comparison which were more difficult to measure.

It’s great to have this resource which reminds us of what has happened, and how much scope there still is for growth in this sector.

Let’s hope that we don’t have to wait another 11 years for the next review of how we are travelling in this field.

Posted in donate, fundraising, grantmaking, impact and measurement, philanthropy, volunteering | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Social Impact Investing – Government Review

socialimpact_graphic-480x248Not a lot of time for this one.

The Federal Government has announced a review into Social Impact Investing – calling for submissions by Monday 27 February 2017.

Key areas for response are:

  • the potential role of the Commonwealth Government in the social impact investing market;
  • principles for social impact investing to guide Commonwealth Government involvement in the social impact investing market; and
  • possible Commonwealth regulatory barriers to the growth of the market.

As social impact investing is a growing field impacting on the not for profit sector, I encourage anyone with views to put in a submission.

Enquiries to :

David Crawford +61 2 6263 2757.


Posted in impact and measurement, philanthropy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment