GOODCOMPANY RESEARCH · PILOT EDITION · AUGUST 2026
The Charity Divide
Does the 80/20 rule apply to doing good?
The Pareto principle says roughly 80% of outcomes can come from 20% of participants. We tested that idea across Australian charity revenue, government funding, donations and volunteering — using the same revenue ranking for every measure.
Based on the ACNC 2024 Annual Information Statement public extract. Financial Ginis exclude Basic Religious Charity records with no reported financial data. Volunteer results include a sensitivity scenario.
MONEY
97.2%
of reported revenue sits with the top 20% of financial reporters ranked by revenue. Financial resources are far more concentrated than 80/20.
PEOPLE
65.5–70.3%
of reported volunteers are mobilised by that same top 20%. Community participation follows a different financial map.
THE PARETO TEST
One ranking. Four resources.
Rank the 45,917 financial reporters by corrected annual revenue and hold that ranking constant. Then ask what share of each resource sits in the top 20%.
The Pareto rule does not simply hold or fail. It splits.
The same top 20% receive almost all revenue and government funding, most donations, but a materially smaller share of reported volunteers. The organisations that dominate money are not the same map as the organisations that mobilise people.
THE FINDINGS
Six results worth sharing
Start with the 80/20 test. Then move the threshold and use Gini coefficients to see how deep the concentration runs across the full distribution.
01
Revenue is far more concentrated than 80/20
The top 20% by revenue receive 97.2% of total reported revenue.
02
Government funding is more concentrated again
The same top 20% receive 98.7% of government revenue.
03
Donations are closest to Pareto
The same top 20% receive 85.0% of donations and bequests.
04
Volunteering follows a different map
The same top 20% mobilise only 65.5–70.3% of reported volunteers.
05
The bottom 95% makes the divide visible
14.7% of revenue, 43.8% of donations and 81–84% of volunteers.
06
Gini confirms the full-distribution story
Revenue Gini 0.945; government 0.972; donations 0.939.
INTERACTIVE LORENZ EXPLORER
How concentrated is each resource?
The 80/20 test gives us one threshold. A Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient use the full distribution: the further the curve bows away from the dashed line of equality, the greater the concentration.
TEST THE 80/20 RULE YOURSELF
Rank charities by revenue, then move the threshold
Start at 80%. Financial reporters are ordered from smallest to largest by revenue, then the same ranking shows how much revenue, government funding, donations, assets and volunteering sit below the threshold you choose.
SIZE BANDS
Two economies, band by band
Switch the resource to see how organisations, money and volunteers are distributed across ACNC revenue bands.
VOLUNTEER-RUN CHARITIES
Nearly half the sector, almost none of the funding
Volunteer-run charities — 23,915 records, 44.5% of the sector — measured against every resource in the dataset.
What this suggests
Volunteer-run charities are far more visible in the donation distribution than in government funding. That does not prove unmet need, but it raises a clear access question: are grant pathways and reporting requirements proportionate to the scale and capacity of community organisations?
“The money sits at the top. Community participation happens much more widely.”
The objective is not to divert support away from large charities. It is to widen the field of organisations that people and companies can confidently find, support and volunteer with.
GOODCOMPANY'S RESPONSE
What we're doing with the findings
The research does not tell us who deserves funding. It does show that money and participation are not distributed in the same way. GoodCompany cannot fix that whole system. We can make access easier.
Gatchy™ is GoodCompany's response to the funding divide, not a finding produced by the ACNC dataset. The $1 billion figure is an ambition to help unlock the next $1 billion for small and medium charities, not a guaranteed outcome.
We can't give every charity the same budget. We can give more charities a fair chance to be found, funded and joined.
REPORTS AND MEDIA
Download the research
All publication files are free to read, share and republish with attribution.
METHOD AND CAUTION
Read the dashboard precisely
Independent GoodCompany analysis of the ACNC public extract, supplied 18 July 2026. It is a map of distribution, not a ranking of merit. “Government funding” is the ACNC AIS field “revenue from government” — grants, service contracts, procurement, rebates, subsidies and funded programs.
Pareto scope
The 80/20 cross-test uses 45,917 financial reporters ranked by corrected annual revenue. That same ranking is held constant across revenue, government funding, donations, assets and volunteers.
Volunteer uncertainty
The public extract reports 608,743 volunteers for QCWA. Because that record is unresolved, volunteer results are shown as a raw-to-sensitivity range.
Pareto vs Gini
The Pareto test holds the revenue ranking constant. Gini ranks organisations by the resource being analysed. Neither determines effectiveness, need or whether a particular funding decision is fair.
Data quality matters
The Lightning Ridge Local Aboriginal Land Council AIS record displayed $54.674 billion in revenue, while its audited accounts report $546,724. The confirmed correction is applied in this analysis. Financial concentration remains extreme under aggressive outlier tests.
Primary sources: ACNC Australian Charities Report, 12th Edition; ACNC 2024 AIS public dataset; ACNC Explanatory Notes — 2024 AIS; ABS Income and Wealth Inequality; ACNC Charity by numbers: The volunteer effect. This is independent GoodCompany analysis, not an ACNC publication.
test