Research synthesis · Australia · 2026
The state of collective giving in Australia
Collective giving — people pooling money and deciding together where it goes — just got its first national baseline. Here's what the evidence says, in plain English: a movement that's grown from a handful of groups to a real part of Australian philanthropy, and the two things standing between it and its full potential.
The numbers
Figures from Philanthropy Australia's Giving Together (2026), based on a sample of 55 groups — indicative of the field, not a full census.
From the margins to the mainstream
In 2017, researchers could find just 17 collective giving groups in Australia. Today there are hundreds, engaging thousands of people. Most formed between 2011 and 2016, and new ones keep emerging each year. Australia's Productivity Commission has since named collective giving a key contributor to social capital — the trust and connection that hold communities together — which matters more than ever at a time when faith in institutions is under strain.
It punches well above its weight
People who give collectively give far more than the typical Australian — a median of $1,000 a year, against roughly $150 for the average taxpayer. And it spills over: about a third of participants increase their wider giving, and a quarter volunteer more. Collective giving is a gateway to deeper civic life, not just a cheque. The model scales, too — 43% of groups move more than $100,000 a year, even though anyone can join with a modest contribution.
Mostly circles, mostly women, mostly volunteers
Giving circles are the dominant form — 87% of groups. The field is overwhelmingly women-led (81% of participants, and nearly all leaders). And it runs on goodwill: half of all groups are entirely volunteer-run, and even those with paid staff lean heavily on volunteers. That's a strength — highly engaged, low-cost — but also a fragility, with real risks of burnout and turnover.
The catch: growth without infrastructure
For all its momentum, the field has grown without a shared backbone. It's fragmented, concentrated in capital cities (78% of groups), constrained by low public awareness, and short on the sustainable operational funding groups need to last. Individually many groups are highly effective; collectively they lack the connective tissue to scale. The report calls this an inflection point.
What the field needs next
The research lands on two complementary priorities — described as “force multipliers” for funders, because resourcing the groups unlocks far more capital and participation than funding a single cause directly:
- 1. A national backbone — to connect and coordinate the field, build capability, raise visibility, and improve shared data.
- 2. Core capacity funding — to help groups stabilise and grow, rather than burn out their volunteers.
Where Elevate fits
That's the role we're built for: the shared operating layer the field is missing — pooling, democratic decisions, transparent reporting and visibility for every group — plus a way to recycle capital so a pool keeps giving instead of being spent once. We don't replace community foundations or funders; we amplify the whole field.
Source & method
All Australian figures are from Branigan, E., Darcas, C., Moriarty, R., Kerr, B., & Seibert, K. (2026), Giving Together: The Power and Potential of Collective Giving in Australia, Philanthropy Australia (lead funder Minderoo Foundation; supported by 5point Foundation and the Australian Communities Foundation). The study drew on a Leader Survey (n=51), a Participant Survey (n=201) and 12 leader interviews across a sample of 55 groups — so the numbers are indicative of the field rather than a complete census.
Philanthropy Australia