News

Made to measure

News

Made to measure

If we want to provide more productive and effective services across the charity and not-for-profit sector, we will need to invest in better measurement, writes Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie for the Community Advocate.

With the productivity agenda becoming more dominant in national policy, it’s even more important to focus on the question of effectiveness and value across the charity and not-for-profit sector.

The reality is that many organisations don’t measure what matters, and neither do our funders, including governments.

Most of the funding for the charity and NFP sector is driven by a listing of funded activities which are measured largely in terms of outputs: numbers of services provided, engagement of “target communities”, participation in events, numbers of clients, and other activities.

Often, it’s the expenditure on each activity that is the main subject of reporting rather than what was achieved.

The move towards more informative outcome measurement has been slow, partly because measures of outcomes are more expensive, more time consuming, and require a higher level of skill and understanding if they are to provide valid comparable data that’s both attributable and meaningful.

Outcomes across our sector are usually about delivering changes in areas including improvements in health, education, employment, housing and creative realisation, or an increase in community consensus and connection, cultural understanding and resilience.

Attributing changes in individuals and communities to specific activities and interventions is not easy. Often there is a level of complexity associated with various systemic and individual changes, and the relatively short-term nature of many funded programs and activities compounds the difficulty of establishing reliable attributions.

The Productivity Commission’s (PC’s) report on the sector almost 15 years ago argued for much greater investment in measurement and suggested that some of the most significant achievements of the charity and NFP sector were in the impact of programs and services beyond the measurable outcomes.

The PC argued that even relatively short-term programs in areas such as health and education could sometimes deliver longer-term impacts such as building community wellbeing, trust, safety, connection to others, engagement in meaningful activity, finding voice and developing a stronger sense of self. The PC prioritised the need for the sector to better measure outcomes and impacts as a key factor in improving productivity.

“The bottom line is that if we want to provide more productive and effective services across our sector, we will need to invest in better measurement.”

Unfortunately, recommended actions to build stronger knowledge systems to support the productivity of the charity and NFP sector have not been implemented. The PC’s recommendations said:

“An Information Development Plan should be developed by the ABS, in consultation with key stakeholders, to improve measurement of the sector and monitor changes.”

An evaluation clearinghouse and advisory services, initially focused on government-funded community service effectiveness, should be established. The Centre for Community Effectiveness would maintain a portal for lodging and disseminating evaluations, including consideration of their quality, provide training materials on good evaluation practice, and support the undertaking of meta-analysis of the evaluations by relevant experts.

Initiative 17 of the Not-for-profit Sector Blueprint addresses the issue in a different way, arguing for increased diffusion of knowledge from socially innovative initiatives.

Again, the problem with this kind of recommended action is that no resources are allocated to the initiative and there is no clear vehicle for implementation. It’s also a relatively narrow focus on social innovation given many of the most effective charity and NFP programs are not necessarily innovative.

In fact, some of the most effective and valuable sector programs and services are built on years of practised experience. What would be innovative is to evaluate these programs and services in ways that demonstrate their real value beyond short-term programmatic delivery.

There is scope to improve the productivity of Australia’s charity and NFP sector, but not without some strategic up-front investment. We know many of our systems (prisons, for example) are not productive if we actually measure real outcomes (crime reduction).

A business faced with the potential to improve capacity and productivity by buying a new machine or other capability can borrow (debt finance) or raise money from shares (equity funding), particularly if it knows the increased capacity will mean higher profits.

No such financing option exists for charities. Providing more productive services that deliver better outcomes and impact doesn’t necessarily generate any additional income. Who’s going to invest in better models of service delivery in our sector?

Even if government and philanthropists do agree to fund better services, on what basis would the additional payments be made if there are no valid and comparable measures of outcomes and impacts?

The Productivity Commission knew – it’s why measurement was such a prominent part of its report into our sector. The bottom line is that if we want to provide more productive and effective services across our sector, we will need to invest in better measurement.

First published in the Community Advocate.  Read here.

Made to measure Read More »

How do we fund sector reform?

News

How do we fund sector reform?

The solutions necessary to change the sector for the better are well known. It’s finding the money that’s the problem, writes Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie for the Community Advocate.

We know what is needed to strengthen the charities and not-for-profit sector, but governments and funders don’t often invest in delivering the required reforms.

Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes has highlighted that most recommendations made to improve our sector are not implemented.

Myles counted 160 recommendations from five key reports over the decade prior to 2023, of which 21 had been implemented, 33 had been partially implemented or lapsed, and 114 had not been implemented.

In the past two years we can add further recommendations from the Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint and the Productivity Commission Future Foundations for giving report.

There are currently more than 200 carefully considered recommendations to improve productivity and effectiveness in the charities and not-for-profit sector that remain dormant.

There have been numerous attempts to analyse why the charities and not-for-profit sector is largely ignored when it comes to key issues such as reducing red tape, cybersecurity, staff development, access to new capital including impact investment and debt financing, better using data, AI, climate change adaption, energy transition, contracting and paying what it takes, streamlining DGR and other restrictions. The list goes on.

Some suggest the reason for inaction is linked to the fragmented nature of our sector and poor investment in peak bodies. Others highlight how the sector uses its advocacy capacity to advance its charitable purposes rather than pushing sector capacity and productivity. Others point to a lack of effective political influence.

The one barrier we can agree has had a major impact on the lack of reform is the cost. Who pays for sector reform?

I should note here that there appears to be an increasing willingness of key philanthropic leaders to prioritise sector capacity and reform. This growing investment in the sector itself is to be welcomed. However, can it provide the level of funding needed to drive sustainable reform?

“The one barrier we can agree has had a major impact on the lack of reform is the cost. Who pays for sector reform?”

At a meeting of international leaders from charities all around the world, this issue of resourcing reform was raised as an important policy challenge.

One solution that is gaining traction in Canada is to create a new sector fund. John Hallward, writing for the Canadian thinktank the Institute for Research into Public Policy made a strong argument for this sector funded approach:

“The charitable sector is not structured or incentivised to innovate. Many organisations are resistant to change, fearing repercussions from their funders. There is a power imbalance that tilts heavily in favour of wealthy foundations, leaving operating charities and the millions of people they serve with little agency.

“Additionally, the sector is fragmented and siloed, lacking the co-ordinated approach needed to foster collaboration and systemic change. To address this issue, we need policy-driven, systemic reform…. The creation of a self-financed, self-governed social sector fund and agency could strengthen charities, foster innovation and restore public trust.”

John outlines in some detail how a proposed social sector fund could work including how it could be governed and examples of how this levy approach applies to other industries. This is his central argument:

“To ensure a stable, predictable source of funding, grant-making foundations should be required to make small mandatory annual contributions to this new social sector fund.

“These contributions would be based on the value of each foundation’s investment assets at the end of each fiscal year and would be collected alongside their annual T3010 filing with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). If that rate were set at one-quarter of one-tenth of one per cent (0.00025), it would generate about $37.5 million annually when applied to the $150 billion in foundation assets.”

In Australia, a 0.01 per cent contribution (one tenth of 1 per cent) would generate more than $120 million annually from the $12 billion plus currently held in public and private ancillary funds. Is this the funding needed for the Centre for Excellence recommended by the Productivity Commission almost 15 years ago? Could it drive real productivity gains across our sector?

We could go one step further in Australia and argue that an even smaller levy (say 0.0002 per cent) could be applied to all government funding of charities. That could generate another $200 million plus annually. We know governments and treasuries don’t like hypothecation, but when it comes to charities, surely there is a case to be made?

It will be interesting to watch the arguments play out in Canada as this policy idea gains momentum. Here in Australia, if the major barrier to sector reform is partly a lack of resources to support sector wide initiatives, shouldn’t this kind of levy be part of our policy discussions?

The good thing is we already know what needs to be done if we actually had the money required for sector wide reform.

First published in the Community Advocate.  Read here.

How do we fund sector reform? Read More »

Productivity matters!

News

Productivity matters!

We need to push back against the idea that we are less productive if we are healthier, better educated, better housed and cared for writes Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie in the Community Advocate.

The push to address Australia’s ‘productivity problem’ has attracted universal support from across the political divide, conservative and progressive economists, and political commentators of all persuasions.

What though does a productivity agenda mean for charities and community organisations?

According to the Reserve Bank of Australia: “In economics, productivity refers to how much output can be produced with a given set of inputs. Productivity increases when more output is produced with the same amount of inputs or when the same amount of output is produced with less inputs.”

The fundamental problem with productivity and our sector is that if we define productivity simply in terms of inputs and outputs (as above), achieving better outcomes for our communities can create a loss of productivity.

If a 100-bed nursing home increases the number of skilled and experienced staff from 30 to 50, we know this increase will significantly improve the quality of care and reduce levels of disease and preventable death. From a purely input/output economic productivity perspective however, putting on more staff to service the same number of beds would make the nursing home less productive.

The new Albanese government is committed to improving productivity.

Less than 24 hours after Labor’s thumping election win handing the PM a significantly increased majority, Dr Chalmers declared the focus of the second term of the Albanese Government would be productivity: “Flatlining productivity is one of the biggest challenges facing our nation, and that’s why we need a big national effort to turn it around,” Dr Chalmers said.

The focus on productivity is not just a policy priority in Australia. Many countries around the world are facing disruptions to their economy. Relying on a stable and fair global trading system to ensure national supplies of goods and services is now seen as a risky approach to managing a nation’s economy. Boosting national productivity is part of the economic response to global trade uncertainty.

An important part of the productivity agenda is market employment versus non-market employment.

Market employment refers to jobs in the private sector. Non-market employment refers to most of the work we do in our sector – health, education, aged care, disability care. All the public sector and not-for-profit (NFP) jobs.

Non-market employment has been growing in Australia as governments have invested more in areas such as aged care, childcare and disability care. For many economists, that’s a big problem. The growth in non-market employment is a major contributor to Australia’s ‘productivity problem’.

“Alarmingly, the number of jobs in the market sector has only increased by 1.3 per cent since Q4 2022, versus 16.3 per cent growth in the non-market sector. In the 2024 calendar year, job growth in the non-market sector ballooned by 8.4 per cent compared to just 0.8 per cent in the market sector… this explosive growth in non-market employment, has pulled down the nation’s productivity.”

A national productivity agenda that focuses on increasing market outputs while cutting non-market expenditure would not be good for our sector or the communities we serve. And that could happen, particularly if we fail to challenge the measures of productivity some economists and commentators already use to push for cutbacks to government funded services, charities and NFPs.

Productivity graphic

 

How productivity is measured. (Source: Reserve Bank of Australia).

“The productivity agenda is here, whether we like it or not. If we’re smart, it provides an opportunity to focus on quality outcomes, impact, and improve how we operate.”

Those of us working on reframing the productivity agenda to include quality outcomes are busy responding to the current Productivity Commission Inquiries which close for submissions on 6 June.

This is now a priority area for CCA. There are many ways to respond, but the most important from our perspective is to push back against the idea that we are less productive if we are healthier, better educated, better housed and cared for.

This week we’ve had a very pleasing boost in our advocacy efforts, and it comes from a surprising source. In handing down their Annual Wage Review decision for 2025 (a 3.5 per cent increase in minimum pay), the Fair Work Commission provided an explanation that included the following point – please excuse the rather long extract, but I think it’s important:

“[34] Therefore, leaving aside the mining sector, it appears that the national economy’s ‘productivity problem’ is largely a consequence of the non-market sector’s disproportionate growth in its share of Gross Value Added and hours worked.

“This flows from governmental policy decisions to improve the availability and quality of services in areas such as healthcare and social services. The measurement of productivity in the non-market sector is problematic since it is not possible to measure output by reference to the market prices paid for goods and services, as in the market sector.

“The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) generally uses production costs as a proxy for output prices, meaning that when rapid employment growth occurs in the non-market sector, particularly in lower-paid employment, this has the consequence of increasing measured output by less than the increase in hours worked, thus lowering measured productivity. This is not a measure that operates by reference to the improved quality of outcomes that might be achieved by greater investment in the non-market sector, and it likely underestimates ‘true’ productivity improvements in the sector.”

The Fair Work Commission went on to use the example of a health intervention that demonstrated increased productivity using a form of ‘quality adjusted multifactor productivity’, a measure that takes account of quality health outcomes, not just the straight inputs (costs and labour) and outputs (units of service provided).

The productivity agenda is here, whether we like it or not. If we’re smart, it provides an opportunity to focus on quality outcomes, impact, and improve how we operate.

For some time, our sector has been struggling to find ways to more accurately describe the value we create. Just as for some time, charities and NFPs have been working to increase our productivity, not just inputs and outputs, but the kind of productivity that strengthens rather than cuts services for our communities.

The push for increased productivity will steamroll us if we don’t do the work to refine how we talk about our value, measure our outcomes, and deliver more effective impact in our communities.

Our sector can and should be part of shaping the national productivity agenda. The alternative is we allow it to shape us.

First published in the Community Advocate. Read here.

Productivity matters! Read More »

Time to celebrate and acknowledge volunteering

News

Time to celebrate and acknowledge volunteering

Volunteers are the beating heart of Australia’s democracy, writes Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie for the Community Advocate.

It’s National Volunteer Week and while we all agree volunteering is good for us, sometimes I think we take volunteering for granted.

I want to highlight just one example of how volunteers contribute to making Australia such an exceptional country.

We’ve just held a national election. For me, no day on the democracy calendar is more inspiring and uplifting than election day. It really is amazing.

Of course, I enjoy maiden speeches, and we will now get to listen to a whole new set, the class of 2025. Most will offer rich personal stories about how people got to be where they are, the sacrifices they made and how they have relied on family and mentor support to finally become a representative in our Parliament.

Most will talk about their connection to their communities through volunteering and other engagements. These maiden speeches will stay on their Parliamentary record as a first indicator of what they are seeking to achieve and why.

At the other end of a political career is the valedictory speech, perhaps the most honest and revealing speech a politician ever gives. We have a while to wait for the next set of these, but they can also partly define a politician and their career. I can still picture Senator Ursula Stephens acknowledging her Irish roots as she lyrically sang her way out of the Senate. Again, I enjoy this ritual, this part of our democracy and our parliament.

But election day is something else. It’s not just about politics and politicians, but much more grounded and connected to our communities, big and small, in every corner of our nation and in embassies and polling places all around the globe. Whether phone voting from Antarctica, fronting up at the Australian embassy in London, or dropping into the local primary school, Australians are united in their participation as equals, all voting for who will form government and lead our country.

According to the Democracy Sausage website at least 2,700 polling places had sausage sizzles or cake stalls (these are the ones we know about). This means thousands of small volunteer groups, school parents and citizens associations, local sporting groups and service clubs were out in force on election day, running sausage sizzles and cake stores, all juggling a roster of volunteers.

In the seat of Fenner where they elected our Assistant Minister for Charities, Andrew Leigh as their representative, more than 85 per cent of polling places had democracy sausages, and a few even had halal options. This is the third highest level of sausage stall presence at polling place of all Australia’s electorates.

Where I voted it was the local surf life-saving club who offered bacon and egg rolls along with the equally gastronomic democracy sausage option. Unfortunately, we missed out on the ubiquitous child decorated democracy cup-cake which I know proliferated at many local primary schools.

I knew all the people handing out how-to-vote cards at my polling place, and despite the spruiking volunteers supporting different political candidates, they all huddled together passing the time between electors in vibrant conversations.

I know not every polling place was without tension, but the vast majority were friendly welcoming places connecting us all with our communities and local groups. While paid AEC staff may be supervising, what makes our polling places work, what sets the tone for the way we cast our vote, are the volunteers.

The successful election of a new government, the associated rituals of concession and acceptance speeches, the mass mobilisation of volunteers and community groups, the universal acceptance of the power of every person in the country to have a say in who governs them, election day in Australia represents democracy at its finest.

It is an understatement to say we should never take our democracy in Australia for granted. We should also not take for granted that at the heart of our democracy, especially on election day, are thousands of charities and not-for-profits mostly staffed by a massive army of volunteers making possible what few other countries experience, a genuine demonstration of true democracy and community.

I can’t imagine what election day in Australia would be without volunteers. It wouldn’t work.

And this is just one small area of our lives where volunteers set the tone, make things possible, provide the base and support that helps us build flourishing communities.

As we acknowledge volunteers in Australia, we should also note that there is still a lot of work to do to better support and enable volunteering in Australia.

We must sort out the basics like insurance and background checks in ways that enable rather than impede volunteering. We need to better define how to support volunteers, particularly in times of crisis.

Volunteers help make Australia the kind of place we want to live in.

CCA looks forward to working with Volunteering Australia and others to advance a policy agenda that recognises the true value of volunteering.

First published in the Community Advocate, 20 May 2025.  Read here.

Time to celebrate and acknowledge volunteering Read More »

Charities and Not-for-profit Pre-Election Forum

News, Submissions-post

Charities and Not-for-profit Pre-Election Forum

Over 150 people filled the National Press Club in Canberra to hear Assistant Minister for Charities, Dr Andrew Leigh MP and Shadow Assistant Minister for Charities, Senator Dean Smith outline their vision and commitments for the charities and not-for-profit sector.

They addressed questions like: What level of support are the major parties offering charities and NFPs in the lead up to the election?  Why has reform of the charities and NFP sector proved so difficult?

Both Dr Leigh and Senator Smith made their support for our sector very clear both through their involvement in the event and the presentations they made.

Charities, community groups and volunteers were there representing the community-building, life-changing work and contribution of Australia’s 60,000+ charities, thousands upon thousands of community groups, 3.5 million volunteer and the more than 1.4 million staff that power our work.

The Australia we want, Third Report

 

A highlight of the day was  the release by CCA with the support of the AMP Foundation of the Third Report of the Australia we want.  Launched by CEO of the AMP Foundation, Nicola Stokes with a vision and hope ‘to spark discussion and debate in Australia regarding our future path, the values we deem most important, and the methods we use to gauge our success.’

Nicola invited all to join a movement for change:

‘Persisting with the same approaches to the same issues often results in limited effectiveness of our interventions. The central message of this report is that the kind of country we live in depends on all of us.  By strategically utilising our resources, we can transform our nation to better embody our values and make a positive impact’.

Excellent coverage of the day also in the Community Advocate: The Great Debate | Community Directors

Charities and Not-for-profit Pre-Election Forum Read More »

Media Release – Australia is going backwards on key measures when it comes to the kind of communities we want to live in

News, Uncategorized

Media Release - Australia is going backwards on key measures when it comes to the kind of communities we want to live in


Australian charities release major new report showing Australia is going backwards on key measures when it comes to the kind of communities we actually want to live in.

The Australia we want, Third Report reveals Australians have become less generous and less likely to volunteer time to charity (and are giving less to charity).  Women feel less safe walking alone at night when compared to many other countries and Australia’s incarceration rate has climbed to become almost twice that of Canada’s and five times higher than Japan.  At the current time there are 18,000 un-sentenced prisoners awaiting their fate.

Community Council for Australia’s CEO, David Crosbie, says the negatives in the report clearly outweigh the positives for most States and Territories.

  • Australians have become less generous.
  • Australians are less likely to volunteer time to charity.
  • Less people are now giving to charities.
  • A lower percentage of income is now being allocated to poorer countries than is the case in most OECD countries.
  • Australian women clearly feel less safe walking alone at night compared to many other countries.

The positives are also worth noting.

  • Women are now making up more of our workplace and the gender pay gap is reducing
  • Our education attainment levels are rising including for Indigenous students
  • Suicide is trending down in all but one jurisdiction
  • The ACT and NSW are the top-scoring jurisdictions, while Victoria and Tasmania round out the bottom of the ranking tables.

David Crosbie said, “Charity leaders believe Australia can be a much better place if governments look well beyond the economy as a measure of success and start investing in making Australia a much fairer, safer, more just and more generous community that is also inclusive.”

“One of the deep concerns in this report is that Australians appear to have accepted the idea that we should simply lock up more and more citizens, at a greater expense to taxpayers, when there is no great gain in crime reduction.  It is disturbing beyond measure that Australia’s current incarceration rate is almost twice that of Canada, double most European countries and five times that of Japan.  Clearly, we could and should do better.”

“In the middle of an election campaign where it seems it is all about how much money each political party can offer voters, we would have like more discussion about some of these critical areas like incarceration rates. Australia now has 18,000 un-sentenced prisoners waiting to be sentenced.  A third of our prisoners have disabilities and chronic health conditions.  Over a third are Indigenous.  80% of prisoners have not completed secondary schooling.”

The Australia we want Third Report is the latest comprehensive review of Australia’s performance set against values-based measures developed by charity leaders.

In 2015, Community Council for Australia brought together 60 major charity leaders to identify what kind of Australia they wanted to see in the future.  Charity leaders selected a series of measures.

David Crosbie added, “During this current Federal Election campaign, you could easily be forgiven for thinking Australia is ultimately nothing more than an economy.  As a community we are so much more than that.

Media Release – Australia is going backwards on key measures when it comes to the kind of communities we want to live in Read More »

The Australia we want, Third Report

News, Research and Resources, Uncategorized

What kind of Australia do we want to live in and what is our role in achieving it?

The Australia we want, Third Report

The Community Council for Australia is committed to achieving a better Australia through strengthening the role and effectiveness of charities and not-for-profit organisations.

Most debates about Australia’s future have been limited by a seemingly exclusive fixation on the type of economy to be achieved. As Rev Tim Costello highlights in his Overview, Australians are more than individual tax paying economic units. Our productivity, innovation, skills and achievements are grounded in flourishing communities within our schools, workplaces, families and local neighbourhoods.

In 2015, a group of 60 leaders from across the charities and not-for-profit sector were asked to consider and discuss ways in which they might describe the Australia we want. Through this process a listing of key values was identified.

The Australia we want is just, fair, safe, inclusive, equal of opportunity, united, authentic, creative, confident, courageous, kind, generous and compassionate. The leaders then developed measures that would show whether the values they had prioritised were being achieved.

This third report presents the latest comprehensive review of Australia’s performance against these agreed values- based measures. It is an ongoing journey to a stronger and more resilient Australia, a journey we need to imagine, plan for, enact and monitor. It is about owning our future and creating the Australia we want.

CCA acknowledges the generous support of the AMP Foundation in making this report possible.

The Australia we want, Third Report Read More »

Media Release – New research – Charities matter to communities and voters

News, Research and Resources

Media Release - New Report - Charities matter to communities and to voters

Community Perceptions Survey Charities 2025A major new report from the Community Council for Australia (CCA), working with Piazza Research, has been released in the run up to the Federal Election.

A sample of over 4,600 representative voters were polled about a range of issues.  The survey has revealed there is deep concern about what is happening to charities on a national and local level. 

CCA CEO David Crosbie says the trend is for Australia to become a more inward looking, selfish country (less people giving and volunteering) and that charities need and deserve much more support from governments, funders and the community. 

The new survey released today – The Community Perception Survey (Charities) – reveals there is widespread support for local MPs to achieve key charity sector goals. David Crosbie said:

  • 92% of people said it is now time charities had the staff, volunteers and capacity to offer better services to the community.
  • 92% of people said it is vital to make it much easier for people to actually give to charities and said major reforms are needed to do this.
  • 91% want experienced and knowledgeable charities to be in the Government’s planning or policy priorities.
  • 91% of those surveyed said they wanted to see productivity and support boosted.
  • 86% of the people in the survey say the new Federal Government should appoint a Minister to look after charities.

David Crosbie said, “It’s very clear that in marginal electorates, voter support for election candidates is partly about their engagement with charities and support for positive charity policies.”

“The bottom line is the vast majority of our charities are underfunded and cost of living issues are impacting on local charities and community groups in a huge way.  Charities also face massive amounts of red tape.”

“Without doubt, it’s got harder and harder for local charities.  Across the sector income has risen by just 8% but staffing costs alone have gone up by at least 11%.  Charities are facing bigger and bigger costs to do their business and unlike small business there is no support for cybersecurity, staff skills development, energy transition, research and development, data use and privacy, capital investment in infrastructure and capacity, or climate change adaptation.”

“Although charities employ over 10% of Australia’s workforce, engage over 3.5 million volunteers, and turn over more than $200 billion (8% of Australia’s GDP), there is no government department to promote charity productivity, no charity ombudsman, not one Federal official outside of the charities regulator whose job is to monitor and promote the sector.”

“Charities matter to our communities, to our economy, to our productivity and wellbeing, but our issues are not taken seriously, and that needs to change.”

“For most marginal electorates that were surveyed, up to 66% of electors are much more likely to vote for a candidate who can improve government policy for charities.  It is important to note, 51% of undecided voters say this issue would influence the way they vote.”

David Crosbie added, “It is very clear from the survey that voters expect to see a stronger collaboration between Government and charities.  The vast majority of electors (between 87% to 99%) believe it is vital that their MP encourages the Australian Government to work much more closely with charities.”

“On top of this, 65% to 80% of people in the survey want their MP to meet with charity sector representatives.  Obviously, voters believe we can do so much better.”

“These compelling findings clearly demonstrate that in Australia’s marginal electorates, charity policy and the involvement of MPs are absolutely significant factors influencing voters’ decisions.  It is clear too that candidates who are very proactive in supporting the charity sector will improve their standing amongst voters – especially swing voters.”

David Crosbie added, “Unfortunately one of the very real problems in the charity sector is organisations tend to advocate for their cause and their purpose (the communities they serve) rather than advocating for themselves or their sector.”

The Community Council for Australia (CCA) is an independent non-political member-based organisation supporting charities and the not-for-profit sector in Australia.

Read the full report:  Community Perceptions Survey (Charities) March 2025, Piazza Research

Infographic of findings from survey

Media Release – New research – Charities matter to communities and voters Read More »

Politically, we have a power outage

News

Politically, we have a power outage

Community Council for Australia is about to release the results of one of the biggest surveys we’ve ever conducted about charities in Australia.
 

Working with Piazza Research, CCA asked more than 4,600 Australians about their relationship with charities and how their views on charities might influence their votes in the upcoming election.

The results will not be surprising to those of us in the sector. They tell a good news story, but they also highlight a major disconnect between community attitudes and national policy making.

The survey results will be released in full on Monday. I want to highlight just four of the findings.

1. The vast majority of Australians have some form of relationship with charities

Nine in 10 survey respondents had donated to, volunteered for, worked for or accessed the services and support of charities. Many had multiple connections with their local charities. This figure is quite remarkable. It highlights that charities are a very significant part of life in Australia.

2. Most respondents see charities as important

In fact, 93 per cent of survey respondents said charities were either important or very important to them, while 98 per cent said charities were important or very important to their community and our future.

3. There is strong support for greater support of charities

On key issues – such as tax deductibility for giving to charities – the survey respondents expressed strong support for measures to encourage greater support for charities. More than 90 per cent of respondents thought donations to registered charities should be tax deductible.

4. Voters are more likely to vote for candidates who are positively engaged with charities

In terms of the upcoming election, voters viewed very favourably any ongoing or supportive engagement political candidates had with local charities. A majority of undecided voters indicated they were more likely to vote for candidates who were positively engaged with charities.

Several survey responses to questions about government and charities endorsed the perception that Australia would be a better place if governments worked better with charities.

The message from the survey is very clear: voters support charities and measures that will improve their effectiveness.

This finding is consistent with other findings about charities and their importance in our communities. Politicians and political parties generally already know and accept that charities enjoy high levels of public trust and confidence. This is why most aspiring local political candidates are told to get involved in local charities as part of building their political career.

Given this level of voter support, the question arises: why aren’t charities a more powerful political force?

I think there are three main reasons for the minimal tangible advancement in many areas of sector reform and the lack of targeted sector investment to improve productivity.

The first is that we are not good advocates for ourselves.

We may be good advocates for our causes and our purpose, but unlike most powerful vested interests – think the Pharmacy Guild or the Minerals Council – our sector doesn’t push self-interest ahead of public interest or public benefit. Charities and community groups invariably put purpose and the communities they serve ahead of self-serving grabs at additional resources and concessions for their own organisations.

The second reason is that we don’t fund sector-wide advocacy. CCA as a peak body has a tiny budget, and very limited financial support and organisational capacity, especially when compared to the heavy hitters mentioned above who play the political game with tens and often hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy funding.

The third reason is that there is no structural vehicle to advance sector-wide reform within government or more broadly. There is no Department of Charities, no Charities Ombudsman, not one senior federal government official outside our regulator (the ACNC) who has any role in monitoring or supporting increased productivity from our sector. Industry groups such as tourism, agriculture, and mining have hundreds or thousands of public servants working to support improved outcomes for their industry.

The key finding of the Piazza research is that charities enjoy a very strong level of support in communities across Australia, which suggests charities could be more electorally significant than many other groups.

The challenge for us as a sector is to translate community support into real political power to drive improved services and effectiveness in delivering on our purpose.

Read on the Community Advocate: Politically, we have a power outage, 8 April 2025 

Politically, we have a power outage Read More »

Youth crime policy failure on repeat

News

Youth crime policy failure on repeat

On Thursday, April 2, 1925, Alex McKinley, then head of the Melbourne Children’s Court, had a letter to the editor published in the Argus calling for young people up to the age of 20 to be offered rehabilitation rather than prison. He was seeking legislative changes that in many ways would effectively raise the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 20:

“Official records prove that 97 per cent of our young offenders (those the Children’s Court is supervising) make good – that is do not later appear for a second offence … it must be acknowledged that the reformative work of the Children’s Court is a proved success. Merely penal methods are not reformative …

“Trained workers seldom become criminals. Therefore, provide a place, for training and then train as workers. Pentridge costs many thousand each a year to maintain, and it does not reform.

“I want to see the State initiate reform work for lads between 17 and 20 years of age. New legislation and machinery are necessary.”

McKinley was clearly a woke do-gooder interested in reducing crime and improving outcomes for young people in Melbourne.

He made his money as a publisher. I wonder what he would think of the campaigns run by the Murdoch papers in Queensland and Victoria over the past 12 months that have convinced us we’re all experiencing a tidal wave of increased youth crime requiring much tougher bail laws and harsher penalties?

If there was a prize for an issue that maps the counter-productive stupidity of public policy driven by sensationalism and click-bait journalism, youth crime would be on the podium.

As journalist Denham Sadler pointed out in Crikey this week: “The News Corp-owned Herald Sun ran 21 stories and launched a petition pushing for reforms in the week before Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan unveiled the “toughest bail laws in Australia”. The new bail reforms will be introduced into the Victorian Parliament this week; a classic scare campaign victory.

These changes include a requirement to consider community safety above all other factors, the removal of remand as a last resort for children, a new “extremely hard to pass” bail test for serious offences and a second-strike rule for offenders.

The Herald Sun simply followed the youth crime alarmist script that has been refined and modernised over decades and recently employed in Queensland by the Courier Mail, leading to similar changes to bail in that state.

In 1945, the Courier Mail blamed parents: “Faulty upbringing in childhood and lack of guidance and supervision in adolescence are considered the major factors responsible for the wave of juvenile delinquency …”

Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie.

A Brisbane Telegraph article on November 27, 1954, blamed “comic books and sordid films for creating a generation of heartless criminal youngsters”.

Youth crime is a serious issue and deserves serious investment and attention. What it doesn’t deserve is ill-conceived, knee-jerk, revenge-driven policies. Our responses to youth crime should be grounded in fact, not anecdote-fuelled misinformation.

Victoria’s youth crime rate is the third lowest in the country, behind just the ACT and South Australia. When population growth is taken into account, overall crime rates are lower than they were 10 years ago.

In many cases, youth crime is episodic and involve a core group of young offenders committing most of the crimes. Most young offenders are not violent recidivists.

So why does youth offending matter so much to our sector?

When we talk about youth incarceration in Australia, we’re talking about Indigenous kids. Two-thirds of young people aged between 10 and 17 currently in custody in Australia are Indigenous. An Indigenous young person is 27 times more likely to be locked up in detention than a non-Indigenous young person.

These incarceration rates clearly reflect a level of entrenched systemic racism and disadvantage all Australians should be ashamed of.

Of even more concern to many in our sector is how public policy in Australia can be driven by media proprietors’ need to harvest outrage. The business model seems to work in part by targeting the vulnerable (or the “other”) to cash in on the fear and alarm they create, and then to push governments to enact harmful policies to address the concern the media have manufactured.

However you look at it, this was certainly not a good couple of weeks for government policy making in Victoria.

Our youth justice systems are now less fair and less just. They provide an even more outstanding example of dysfunctional policy, exacerbating the problem rather than making it better.

It was also not a good couple of weeks for all of us trying to strengthen our communities and create the kind of Australia we would like to live in.

As we enter the federal election campaign period, youth crime stands as a warning that bad policy can flourish when media megaphones of outrage and misinformation over-ride what we know is needed to serve the public interest.

Read on the Community Advocate: Youth crime policy failure on repeat, 19 March 2025

Youth crime policy failure on repeat Read More »