Comparison of Australian and US Charity Fundraising
As a dual citizen, I often get asked, “What are the differences between fundraising in Australia and fundraising in the United States?”. When it comes to charitable fundraising, Australia and the United States share common goals—mobilising public and private support for vital causes—but the methods, culture, and scale of fundraising vary significantly between the two countries. For charities operating in or learning from both environments, understanding these contrasts can sharpen strategy and unlock new growth.
Here are the key comparisons, the differences and the lessons learned.
1. Scale and Maturity of the Sector
The United States is home to the world’s largest nonprofit sector, with over 1.5 million registered charities and a deeply embedded culture of philanthropy. Giving in the US reached an estimated $499 billion in 2023, representing about 2.1% of GDP.
In contrast, Australia’s sector is smaller and younger, with around 60,000 registered charities and annual giving estimated at $13 billion AUD—less than 1% of GDP. While charitable giving is growing in Australia, it does not yet match the institutional or individual levels seen in the US.
Lesson for Australia: There is untapped potential to grow the giving economy. Australia’s challenge is to normalise large-scale giving through structured stewardship, major donor programs, and cultural shifts that celebrate philanthropy.
2. Tax Structures and Incentives
US donors benefit from a well-known charitable deduction that reduces taxable income, often incentivising major gifts. The process is familiar and built into annual financial planning, especially for high-net-worth individuals.
In Australia, while donations over $2 to deductible gift recipients (DGRs) are tax-deductible, the incentive is less aggressively promoted or integrated into wealth planning. Furthermore, estate and inheritance tax advantages that drive bequests in the US are absent in Australia.
Lesson for Australia: The sector could benefit from stronger advocacy to improve and promote tax incentives, particularly for major and planned giving.
3. Fundraising Culture and Risk Appetite
American charities are typically more assertive in their fundraising—making bold asks, investing heavily in development teams, and pursuing innovation in digital, events, and peer-to-peer strategies. Donor cultivation, stewardship, and campaign-based giving are standard practice.
Australian organisations tend to take a more conservative, sometimes risk-averse approach. Fundraising teams are often smaller and operate with tighter budgets. Fear of donor fatigue or over-asking can limit ambition.
Lesson for Australia: Culturally, charities need to give themselves permission to ask—and to invest. The sector would benefit from professionalising development teams and viewing fundraising as a long-term investment, not a cost.
4. Giving Vehicles and Infrastructure
In the US, vehicles such as Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), private foundations, and endowments are widespread. DAFs alone held over $230 billion USD in 2023, acting as a major driver of structured philanthropy.
Australia is catching up, with Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) and Public Ancillary Funds (PuAFs) slowly growing, but they are less prominent and less understood. Similarly, endowment-building is underdeveloped compared to the US.
Lesson for Australia: The sector must better educate donors and advisors about these structures and normalise legacy and long-term giving.
5. Digital and Innovation Capacity
US charities have more readily embraced AI, data analytics, and integrated digital strategies. They often lead in omnichannel donor engagement, leveraging CRM tools, automated segmentation, and sophisticated donor journeys.
Australian charities are investing in these areas but tend to lag behind in systems integration, data strategy, and digital confidence.
Lesson for Australia: Closing the digital maturity gap is essential. Investment in CRM platforms, business intelligence, and digital fundraising innovation must be prioritised.
6. Regulation and Compliance
Australia’s regulatory environment, driven by the ACNC, is relatively centralised and transparent. The ACNC Charity Register improves public trust and accessibility of information.
In the US, the IRS governs nonprofits, but oversight is less centralised, and state-level compliance adds complexity. However, US charities benefit from looser restrictions on commercial activities and advocacy.
Lesson for Australia: While Australia’s system supports integrity, there’s room for streamlining multi-jurisdictional fundraising rules and enabling more advocacy activity by charities.
The US fundraising landscape offers lessons in ambition, structure, and scale. But Australia’s charity sector, with its strong reputation for trust and innovation, is poised for transformation. The next decade presents an opportunity to redefine Australian philanthropy—borrowing what works from abroad, while tailoring it to a uniquely Australian context.
A mature, confident, and tech-savvy fundraising sector is within reach. It starts with investment, professionalisation, and a mindset shift—from scarcity to opportunity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.