FAQs

Who is behind #CharitiesForImpact? 

#CharitiesForImpact is volunteer-run, has received no funding from any sources, and doesn’t accept funding from its supporters. Our supporters share common values, most importantly, we want an impactful philanthropic sector in Australia and globally.

Our thanks go to the Good Ancestors Project who have volunteered ICT support and website building. 

What does #CharitiesForImpact want? 

We think Government is right to look for ways to increase donations to Australian charities and to find ways to grow connectedness in Australian communities. However, current DGR endorsement categories are ad-hoc and not connected to impact. For instance, DGR endorsement type 5.1 - Defence - allows an organisation that repairs war memorials to have DGR status, but excludes the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons, which was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for its work. We think giving DGR status to the most impactful causes, like preventing globally catastrophic disasters, would help charities in Australia do more good.

We also support Australia adopting international best practice in charity evaluation and comparison. Many people haven’t considered how reviewing evidence of impact could help their donation go orders of magnitude further.

This is set out in more detail in our letter. 

What is “DGR Status” and why does it matter? 

Australian charity law is complicated. A small group of charities have “deductible gift recipient” (DGR) status. In essence, DGR status means their donors can tax-deduct donations, and they can offer a range of benefits to their employees.

DGR status is all but essential to sustainably operating an Australian charity. Allowing impactful charities to have DGR status is important because it allows them to fundraise better, to attract and retain talented staff, and ultimately to do more good.

Would agreeing your recommendations mean more Australian money goes offshore? 

Australia’s philanthropic sector suffers from brain drain, with many of Australia’s most talented philanthropists and most impactful organisations being based overseas. 

ICAN was sparked in Australia through collaborations led by the Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). ICAN is now headquartered in Geneva. 

Giving What We Can was co-founded in 2009 by Australian Toby Ord, but is now based in Oxford.

Talent moving offshore is bad for Australia’s economy, it means Australia receives less benefit from the good work of these organisations, and it deprives our society of talented and compassionate leaders. 

This doesn’t have to be a one-way street. Recently, the Government allowed the Disaster Ready Fund to support impactful organisations working on natural catastrophic risks. This impact-focused change has resulted in the international organisation ALLFED beginning operations in Australia, and bringing with it substantial overseas philanthropic funding.

We think Australia adopting an impact-focused approach to charity regulation could make it a global leader, stop the brain drain, attract talent and funding to Australia and make Australia a key beneficiary of the good work of these organisations. 

What does “impact” have to do with social cohesion and growing connectedness in Australian communities?

Current legal frameworks regulating the sector are out of touch with the modern Australian community. For instance, the concept of a “public benevolent institution” emerges from depression-era High Court rulings and is no longer suitable for modern communities. As the Law Council of Australia has observed, the requirement that a PBI targets those worthy of ‘‘pity and compassion” is paternalistic and reflects an outdated view of disadvantage and disability. 

This is simply not how the vast majority of Australians today think about, and organise around, doing good. The High Court has not substantively considered the meaning of PBI since 1942.

A practical impact of these outdated laws is that Effective Altruism Australia, a public benevolent institution, cannot offer practical support to effective altruism groups in universities and cities across Australia. 

These groups want to explore ways of doing good beyond global health and poverty – such as animal welfare. If Effective Altruism Australia helped a university club run a reading group on animal welfare, the charity would risk being deregistered.

We think that law reform that empowers organisations working in the impact-focused cause areas that motivate modern Australians would help those organisations to better connect and empower their communities. 

Why do you think advocacy is important?

Advocating for those who advocate has been an enduring theme in Australia’s not-for-profit sector – we support the work of the Stronger Charities Alliance. 

Advocacy is particularly important for impact-focused charities because Government is in control of many of the outcomes we care about – from the minimum standards by which animals are treated to how the risk of catastrophic disasters are managed. 

Advocacy is a public good that creates value for government and communities. Advocacy isn’t “slacktivism” or mere awareness raising. Advocacy involves thoughtfully generating innovative solutions to longstanding problems; developing evidence-based policy; understanding, consulting and engaging the community; building and coordinating international networks; and aiding decision-makers to grapple with complex issues.

Thoughtful advocacy provides real value to the Australian policy conversation and is an input to a flourishing democracy. The loudest voice in public policy should be the public. 

What is the link between advocacy and community engagement?

As explained above, current legal frameworks are out of touch with the modern Australian community. Charities with DGR status can’t work on many of the causes that motivate modern Australians the most. That means mature organisations can’t offer communities the supports and frameworks they need to connect and engage with the issues they care about.

Rising cynicism and resentment is a driver of a toxic trend that is eroding confidence in democracy globally. Many people think that the rich and big businesses can monopolise the ears of the decision-makers and that individuals don’t have a real voice. This is harmful, whether it is actual or merely perceived. 

Allowing charities with DGR status to operate in cause areas that motivate modern Australians – like catastrophic disaster prevention or animal welfare – promises to bring people together around the ideas they’re passionate about and give them an authentic democratic voice. 

Can’t charities already engage in policy advocacy? 

We support the work of the Stronger Charities Alliance. It’s best placed to comment generally on the state of policy advocacy by charities in Australia.

The key point #CharitiesForImpact is making is that narrow DGR classes mean that charities whose primary path to impact is policy advocacy usually can’t obtain DGR status. That means they have limited fundraising potential and it’s harder for them to attract and retain policy and community-building expertise. This amounts to a de facto exclusion of charities from important parts of the national policy conversation. 

What do you mean by “impact”?

In general, we’re talking about the number of lives improved; how much they are improved; and the cost-effectiveness of specific interventions. 

There are many paths to impact, and considering various causes and approaches is an appropriate way to reflect people’s values and priorities. Paths to impact can include fixing bad things that have happened, as well as stopping bad things from happening in the first place. 

Working to prevent the suffering of animals can be high-impact because there are large numbers of animals and often they are not treated with respect and compassion. 

Working to prevent catastrophic disasters can be high-impact because the scale of the problem is so large. For instance, the use of nuclear weapons by any state would result in catastrophic consequences, regionally and globally. These impacts would include millions of immediate deaths, physical devastation, destruction of environments, atmospheric changes producing a nuclear winter which could result in up to 5 billion people and countless animals starving with ongoing food and water insecurity, and ongoing radiation exposure with ramifications for generations to come. The impact of even a small reduction in the chance of a large scale war could be very significant. 

We acknowledge that impact can be complex and complicated, but there’s a substantial field with expertise and experience in understanding, measuring and comparing impact. Given that a focus on impact can make our philanthropic efforts orders of magnitude better, doing the hard work is worthwhile.

How would government conduct impact evaluation, and wouldn’t it be expensive?

There are many pragmatic ways for government to implement impact evaluation. One option would be a small, independent team that adopts established best practice methodologies of long-standing global evaluators. Another option would be contracting with, or offering grants to, established global evaluators to begin doing Australian-specific work. 

A graduated rollout would make sense. Evaluation should always be ‘opt-in’, and government could begin with cause areas where evaluation methodology is most straightforward. 

Evaluation is unlikely to be costly, and the benefit is very large. Based on public information about the budgets of global charity evaluators, the Australian government could likely conduct robust charity evaluation in Australia for roughly 0.1% of the value of the Australian philanthropic sector. Given overseas charity evaluators can make donations 10x or 100x more impactful, the potential benefit is very large. 

Do you think some causes or charities aren’t impactful? 

A focus on evidence-based impact can help any charity working in any cause area to increase the amount of good they can achieve. That’s one reason we’re excited about the prospect of the Australian government creating frameworks and promoting a focus on impact. 

That said, evidence shows that some charities are not impactful, or in some cases even do harm when they don’t intend to. We have great respect for organisations that take evidence seriously, change course when the evidence warrants it, and drop interventions that prove ineffective or harmful. Ceasing the No Lean Season program is a remarkable example of caring about impact and acting with integrity.