Abstract

Civic participation is crucial for maintaining a healthy democracy, and consequently, enhancing civic participation has become a critical concern for policymakers. Existing research predominantly
examines how and why individuals participate in civil society, such as through volunteering activities. However, less attention has been given to where and when people have the opportunity to participate, including the geographic distribution of opportunities.

Some data on civic participation opportunities in Australia, specifically opportunities to volunteer, is available through registrations with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC), some is published on non-government organisation (NGO) websites, and some is held in reporting to government and funders. This paper addresses this gap by reconciling publicly available data to map
civic participation opportunities across Australia, employing an adapted version of the civic opportunity index originally developed by de Vries et al. (2024). Using a newly constructed data set of approximately 30,000 charities registered with the ACNC, combined with additional data from charity websites, we identified significant regional disparities. We acknowledge significant limitations of this
analysis based on available public data, and we seek ongoing collaborations to improve the reliability of the findings.

Based on what we can currently map, with the exception of Queensland, civic volunteering opportunities appear to be predominantly concentrated in Australia's capital cities, highlighting substantial spatial inequalities. At the charity level, we find that charities dedicated to human rights and legal advocacy offer the most extensive volunteering opportunities, while religious charities tend to offer fewer such opportunities. Comparing the spatial distributions of civic opportunities and charity-run programs, we highlight the methodological shortcomings of mapping civic opportunities based on organisational location rather than where these opportunities are created.

Together, these findings enable policymakers to pinpoint ‘civic deserts’—areas lacking civic infrastructure—and inform targeted investments and strategies to strengthen democratic resilience and civic participation across Australia.

File attachments