In advanced industrialized economies, charitable organizations work alongside formal social services provided through welfare states to assist people living in poverty. The work of charities with socially and economically marginalized people, however, often takes place in the absence of robust evidence about what impact charity has on people’s lives. This study draws on a large administrative database to investigate what determines repeat requests for charity and how people may achieve dignity. Our findings show that frequent residential address changes seem to make people more reliant on charity, whereas the more time spent with people receiving charity significantly decreases repeat requests for charity. We propose that the provision of charity can be an opportunity to promote connectedness.
AmbreyC.UlichnyJ.FlemingC. (2017). The social connectedness and life satisfaction nexus: A panel data analysis of women in Australia. Feminist Economics, 23(2), 1-32.
2.
Australian Council of Social Services. (2016). Poverty in Australia 2016. Sydney, Australia: Social Policy Research Centre.
3.
BenjaminL. (2012). The potential of outcome measurement for strengthening nonprofits’ accountability to beneficiaries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 1224-1244.
4.
BrooksA. (2004). The effects of public policy on private charity. Administration & Society, 36, 166-185.
5.
CamilleriP.WinkworthG. (2005). Catholic social services in Australia: A short history. Australian Social Work, 58, 76-85. doi:10.1111/j.0312-407X.2005.00185.x
CochraneL.ThorntonA. (2016). Charity rankings: Delivering development or dehumanising aid?Journal of International Development, 28, 57-73. doi:10.1002/jid.3201
8.
CortisN.YoungA.PowellA.ReeveR.SimnettR.HoK.RamiaI. (2016). Australian Charities Report 2015. Sydney, Australia: Centre for Social Impact and Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
9.
DasE.KerkhofP.KuiperJ. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 161-175.
Department of Social Services. (2017). Discussion paper: Financial wellbeing and capability activity. Canberra: Australian Government.
12.
DesmondM. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and profit in The American City. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.
13.
EngelsB.NissimR.LandvogtK. (2012). Financial hardship and emergency relief in Victoria. Australian Social Work, 65(1), 54-72.
14.
FongC. (2007). Evidence from an experiment on charity to welfare recipients: Reciprocity, altruism and the empathic responsiveness hypothesis. The Economic Journal, 117, 1008-1024.
15.
ForresterD.WestlakeD.McCannM.ThurnhamA.SheferG.GlynnG.KillianM. (2013). Reclaiming social work? An evaluation of systemic units as an approach to delivering children’s services. Bedfordshire, UK: Tilda Goldberg Centre for Social Work and Social Care.
16.
FrederickJ.GoddardC. (2008). Sweet and sour charity: Experiences of receiving emergency relief in Australia. Australian Social Work, 61, 269-284.
17.
GabrielI. (2017). Effective altruism and its critics. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34, 457-473. doi:10.1111/japp.12176
18.
GeeL. K. (2011). The nature of giving time to your child’s school. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 552-565.
19.
Haski-LeventhalD.FootC. (2016). The relationship between disclosure and household donations to nonprofit organizations in Australia. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 992-1012.
20.
HyndmanN.McConvilleD. (2016). Transparency in reporting on charities’ efficiency: A framework for analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 844-865.
21.
JettenJ.HaslamC.HaslamA. (2012). The social cure: Identity, health and well-being. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
KawachiI.BerkmanL. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 78, 458-467.
24.
LynnJ. L. E. (2002). Social services and the state: The public appropriation of private charity. Social Service Review, 76, 58-82. doi:10.1086/324608
25.
MasonD. (2013). Putting charity to the test: A case for field experiments on giving time and money in the non-profit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 193-202.
26.
McBrideA.LoughB.SherradenM. (2012). International service and the perceived impacts on volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 969-990.
27.
MendesP. (2009). Retrenching or renovating the Australian welfare state: The paradox of the Howard government’s neo-liberalism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18, 102-110. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00569.x
28.
MitchellG. E. (2014). Creating a philanthropic marketplace through accounting, disclosure, and intermediation. Public Performance & Management Review, 38, 23-47. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576380102
29.
MohanJ.BreezeB. (2016). The logic of charity: Great expectations in hard times. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
MunroE. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report—A child-centred system. London, England: Department for Education.
31.
MurphyD.DugganM.JosephS. (2013). Relationship-based social work and its compatibility with the person-centred approach: Principled versus instrumental perspectives. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 703-719.
SingerP. (2016). The most good you can do. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
SmithS.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
StandingG. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. London, England: Bloomsbury.
38.
TownsendK.McWhirterB. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counselling, assessment, and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 191-201.
39.
van IngenE.DekkerP. (2011). Changes in the determinants of volunteering: Participation and time investment between 1975 and 2005 in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 682-702.
40.
WooldridgeJ. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
41.
WuthnowR. (2004). Saving America: Faith-based services and the future of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
