The Challenges of Volunteer Humanitarianism in Australia’s Neoliberal Context

Abstract

In Australia’s neoliberal context, volunteers play a crucial role in refugee settlement but face significant challenges despite their intercultural skills. Neoliberal outsourcing of social welfare work to volunteers and NGOs not only undermines the altruistic essence of volunteerism but also transforms it into a tool for cost-cutting and social service privatisation. The undervaluation of volunteers’ work, due to difficulties in measuring their skills within Australia’s labour framework, leads to their contributions being underappreciated. Moreover, resource constraints within the neoliberal environment hinder adequate support and professional development opportunities for volunteers. The outsourcing of volunteers by NGOs exacerbates power imbalances, as volunteers become dependent on NGOs, which exert significant control over their work. This dynamic embeds a power differential, where volunteers are beholden to the mechanisms of state and institutional power that control resources, messaging, and accountability. Tensions and ideological disparities also arise between paid employees and volunteers. Furthermore, the study underscores how NGOs’ accountability to donors may compromise their autonomy and mission, diverting attention from addressing the needs of marginalised communities. The process of responsibilisation imposed by NGOs, aligning with donors’ priorities, imposes stringent rules and accountability on volunteers, potentially undermining their voice and autonomy. However, while the study criticised certain aspects of neoliberalism, it also recognised its encouragement and valorization of volunteering. It emphasises the need to invest in volunteers through fair compensation, proper training, monitoring, and policies to prevent exploitation, recognising their vital role alongside professionals in refugee settlement.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, Australia’s refugee settlement approach has shifted to a neoliberal model that contracts humanitarian organisations to take on responsibility for the social and cultural aspects of refugee settlement, as the state withdraws from these services (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017: 239–46). This model prioritises refugee self-sufficiency and productivity, moving away from welfare-based initiatives towards ‘economically efficient’ approaches (Boese et al., 2022; Erickson, 2012). A substantial component of the labour for humanitarian organisations has been supplied by volunteers (Muehlebach, 2012). Both paid and unpaid members of the community, in formal and informal spheres, have responded to the need for locally responsive humanitarian initiatives for refugee communities (Overgaard, 2019). These volunteers, who Sandri (2018) refers to as volunteer humanitarians work directly with refugee communities or through humanitarian organisations. These volunteer humanitarians tend to be employed by non-government organisations (NGOs) who can act as conduit for neo-liberal dictates of the state. Their role as mediator is muted, with the funding rules, priorities and even the ways of assisting refugees cascaded to the volunteer humanitarians. Despite the significant contributions of these volunteers, the neoliberal context insufficiently values their efforts. This is partly because unpaid volunteering work falls outside the formal waged system, which is built on principles of competition and financial gain that are not present in volunteer work. This undervalues community-led and local-level service.

Conversely, neoliberalism explicitly valorises volunteering within an ideology that prioritises individual responsibility over collective welfare. It frames unpaid labour as selfless civic duty and social solidarity, fostering moral agency among volunteers. However, this also enables the state to shift social responsibilities onto individuals, maintaining power and control while withholding adequate resources for refugee settlement (Muehlebach, 2012). This shift not only mitigates the state’s role in addressing systemic issues but also consolidates power in the hands of those who control the narrative and the distribution of resources. As Wendy Brown (2015) argues, neoliberal rationality reframes public responsibility as individual moral obligation, thereby masking structural inequalities and deepening social conflict. As a result, what may initially appear as a spontaneous act of virtue is, in fact, a carefully designed government strategy to minimise state responsibility while exploiting the labour of volunteers (Vrasti & Montsion, 2014). Neo-liberalism drives a perspective that seeks to reduce costs, including investment in the social good, which can lead to exploitation. More insidiously, it frames the ‘conduct of conduct’ (Brown, 2015: 21, 39), setting expectations for people, including volunteers.

While the state relies heavily on volunteers, the neoliberal outsourcing of humanitarian work (Brown, 2015: 27) creates significant challenges in volunteer refugee interactions, an area that has been under-researched. This study addresses this gap by examining the difficulties volunteers encounter in refugee settlement within Australia’s neoliberal framework. It explores the implications of outsourcing these initiatives to NGO and highlights how power dynamics and ideological conflicts within NGOs and among volunteers influence refugee settlement efforts.

Theorising Volunteer Humanitarianism in a Neoliberal World

In this article, neoliberalism is viewed as an ‘ideological software’ that drives specific state practices in competitive globalisation, aiming to generate public consensus (Peck & Tickell, 2017). Despite its core ideology opposing state intervention, neoliberal policies often lead to disciplinary forms of state action (Brenner & Theodore, 2002), operating across various governance levels in complex and contested ways (Aguirre et al., 2006). Neoliberal approaches include two segments: 'rollback' and 'rollout'. Rollback involves state withdrawal from social services, while rollout combines active state building and regulatory reform (Peck & Tickell, 2002). Rollout reconstructs 'local communities' to be 'governmentalised', favouring self- and peer governance (Corry, 2013; Delanty, 2003).

Outsourcing public services to civil society is a crucial aspect of the neoliberal rollout governmentality (Burchell, 1991). Generally, the emphasis on cost-effectiveness guides the delegation of state responsibilities. Within this framework, the state enhances its authority by withdrawing from social welfare obligations (rollback) and minimising expenses (Burchell, 1991). Rollout neoliberalism reconstructs ‘local communities’ as ‘governance objects’, by considering them as governable and as governed (Corry, 2013). More precisely, they are most likely to be recognised as ‘governmentalised’ but with a preference for self-governance and peer-governed subjects (Delanty, 2003; Worley, 2005). Under the neoliberal setting, the ‘governmentalised’ individuals and humanitarian organisations are expected to shoulder formal responsibility of performing social welfare services on behalf of the government, which had previously been undertaken by central governments.

Rollout neoliberalism creates key challenges. Nelson and Dunn (2017) show how it devolves antiracism responsibilities to councils, communities, and individuals, positioning them as locally accountable. However, without clear strategies and sufficient resources, this shift can severely limit antiracist efforts. Their study, based on interviews in two Australian localities—one in South Australia and one in New South Wales—examined local antiracism initiatives involving community organisations, government officials, and local leaders. In the broader context, such approaches reduce the state’s responsibility for social welfare and weaken social citizenship by shifting obligations to local communities and individuals (Delanty, 2003). In addition, in a neoliberal setting, when the resources for antiracism initiatives are advertised to grass-roots agencies by central governments, this can create competition among local agencies, instead of coalition building (Nelson & Dunn, 2017).

Like antiracism efforts, community-led refugee settlement initiatives face significant challenges. States are accountable for promoting the integration of refugee communities through ongoing commitments to refugee-friendly legislation and resources, enabling refugees to become productive citizens (UNHCR, 2013). However, over the past two decades, Australian governments have shifted to a neoliberal framework, outsourcing the social and cultural aspects of refugee settlement to humanitarian organisations and volunteers, reducing state involvement (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017; Sandri, 2018). This approach has led to challenges, as it emphasises self-reliance and productivity, shifting from welfare to economic efficiency (Boese et al., 2022; Erickson, 2012). Such discourse on worthy citizenship, focused on economic self-sufficiency, further marginalises refugee communities, as they often lack the necessary skills, support, and information to achieve this goal (Erickson, 2012).

Volunteers have played a vital role in humanitarian organisations (Muehlebach, 2012). To meet local refugee needs, both paid and unpaid individuals from formal and informal sectors have actively contributed (Overgaard, 2019). Sandri (2018) refers to them as ‘volunteer humanitarians’, highlighting their direct engagement with refugee communities, either independently or through organisations. It is important to note that neoliberalism explicitly valorises volunteering, by delegating states responsibilities to volunteers (Vrasti & Montsion, 2014). Neoliberal states promote the idea of altruism in volunteerism, enabling volunteers to perceive their unpaid labour as an embodiment of social solidarity. In this way, non-labour benefits of volunteer humanitarianism are made visible, which have been historically driven by religious conviction of other ethical dispositions (Von Essen et al., 2015). While such interpretations indirectly facilitate the widespread mobilisation of volunteers, as observed by Muehlebach (2012), they do not necessarily ensure the essential resources for carrying out tasks related to refugee settlement. Instead of viewing volunteerism merely as a spontaneous virtuous act, scholars often contend that in the contemporary neo-liberal era it is a carefully crafted government strategy to delegate social responsibilities to volunteers (Vrasti & Montsion, 2014), and to generate financial saving for state financial coffers. This not only absolves the state of responsibility for settlement services but, as Brown (2015) argues, also masks structural inequalities and social conflicts rooted in the power imbalance between the neoliberal state and volunteers. By emphasising individual moral obligation, the state obscures its responsibilities—an outcome likely intended in neoliberal contexts.

A large pool of volunteers supports refugee interventions through NGOs and informal efforts. While not a substitute for professionals, they complement their work in four keyways (Fratzke & Dorst, 2019). Firstly, volunteers contribute to refugee communities with their human capital, including specialised skills and knowledge such as unique language proficiency or familiarity with local housing markets, providing essential support that a service agency might lack. Volunteers can dedicate their additional time to deliver personalised services to refugees, especially when case workers are overloaded. Secondly, volunteers can also offer essential companionship and emotional support to refugees who may lack friends and extended family, a role that professional agencies may not be adequately equipped to take on. Thirdly, the personal, professional, and social networks, along with the physical and financial resources of local volunteers, assist refugees in securing their first jobs or connecting with local social groups, thereby helping them reduce isolation. Fourthly, community volunteer members can also be an important source of physical resources and capital to fulfil gaps for refugees during the first weeks or months after arrival (Fratzke & Dorst, 2019).

In a neoliberal context, the value of volunteer’s unique contributions and skills, comparable to professionals, prompts questions about their recognition. It is worth mentioning that volunteers, who offer time and skills freely for the benefit of others, either formally through organisation or informally (Biddle et al., 2022), are not considered part of the labour force in Australia (Turner et al., 2020). This exclusion is rooted in the presumed close connection between human capital and economic activity, suggesting that an individual’s work and expertise are valued primarily if they have monetary worth. In such a context, the informal and unpaid nature of volunteer’s work does not neatly fit within the neoliberal framework of human capital (Oppenheimer, 2008). Their act of volunteering falls under the category of care work and companionships (Martinez et al., 2011), which lacks legitimate recognition due to its perceived absence of economic worth.

NGOs mobilise many volunteers and develop dependent relationships with local volunteer groups to expand refugee settlement efforts, especially amid tight funding (Richmond & Shields, 2005). Scholars argue that NGOs reinforce the neoliberal state by aligning with its values and ideologies to secure state funding (Timmer & Docka, 2018; Tvedt, 1998). NGOs are obliged to comply with their funder’s conditions (Wallace et al., 1997). Consequently, NGOs tend to prioritise responding to donor’s demands over meeting the needs and interests of the underprivileged people they serve (Wallace et al., 1997). Donors mostly set a restrictive timeline for running refugee settlement-related projects, which makes the settlement process more complicated (Richmonds & Sheilds, 2005).

Within the contract-based temporal funding mechanism, NGOs struggle to keep balance between the limited resources and expanding demand of settlement-related work. As a result, NGOs find it difficult to provide resources, training, and physical space to volunteers. This situation is further complicated by the pressures NGOs face from market-driven expectations and external regulatory forces. Market-driven expectations push NGOs to operate efficiently, with measurable outcomes, often influenced by the preferences of donors or funders. At the same time, external regulatory forces shape how NGOs must comply with specific standards and requirements. These pressures are balanced against the local context—the unique social, cultural, and economic conditions in which the NGOs operate (Tweedie & Luzia, 2023).

Despite being poorly resourced, volunteers are framed by the neoliberal narrative as responsible citizens obligated to engage in humanitarian work (Lacely & Ilican, 2006). This perspective overlooks the intrinsic nature of volunteer work, often treating it as extraneous or altruistic rather than recognising it as a form of labour (Lacely & Ilican, 2006). Furthermore, the neoliberal state subjects volunteers to a stringent and intense plan of action through the NGO-induced responsibilisation process (Hartman et al., 2000; Lacely & IIcan, 2006; Marinetto, 2003; Medeiros, 2001). The NGOs have taken on a critical role as mediator of neoliberal governance, influencing the way that volunteer humanitarianism is carried out. This departure from the traditional liberal perspective on volunteers raises critical questions about the true nature of volunteerism within these paradigms. Does this heightened emphasis on responsibility unconsciously exploit the true nature and the spirit of volunteerism and does this process truly recognise volunteer’s labour?

Methodology

In this study, we explored the challenges volunteers face in Australia’s refugee settlement within a neoliberal context. Qualitative data were collected through 20 semi-structured interviews in Auburn and Armidale, NSW across 2021–2022, with 12 women and 8 men from diverse backgrounds. Each interview lasted approximately 1 h. Auburn interviews were conducted face-to-face, while Armidale interviews were held online via Zoom due to the statewide COVID-19 shutdown. Participants were purposively selected for diversity in age, gender, and ethnicity, including members of both refugee and non-refugee communities. The interviews were purposively chosen to represent two specific groups related to the refugee settlement process:

1. 1. The first group was individual and local community-based organisation’s volunteers who contributed to settling refugee communities. Overall, 14 volunteers participated, of which eight were female and six were male volunteers.

2. 2. The second group comprised paid employees from NGO settlement service providers, who were directly involved in supervising volunteers. There were six participants in this group, of which four were female, and two were male. These NGOs provided settlement services in urban and regional centres under the Department of Home Affairs and Transition Support programme.

In this study, we draw a distinction between volunteers and professional service holders. The study characterises volunteers as individuals who undertake refugee settlement initiatives without pay. On the other hand, professional service holders are presented as NGO officials who engage in refugee settlement initiatives as paid employees.

For data analysis, qualitative data from interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify thematic patterns. The coding focused on linking the data to the research objectives, specifically examining the challenges volunteers face in the neoliberal context. The following section presents the key themes that emerged from these interviews.

Data collection was conducted in Auburn (urban) and Armidale (regional), which are active hubs for refugee settlement in Australia. Auburn is a multicultural suburb with a significant overseas-born population and diverse cultural and religious groups and has long been a settlement hub for migrant communities, while Armidale is a regional town with a predominantly Australian-born population that has more recently become a designated refugee settlement area (ABS, 2021). Both communities are optimistic about refugee settlement and are keen to add to the cultural diversity of their respective areas. The positivity within these study locations is essential to bear in mind when interpreting the findings. The study locations were purposively selected, with the refugee population more settled in Auburn and comparatively newer in Armidale. In a study by Auburn City Council (2015), formal volunteering services were found to be more prevalent in areas that have settled and long-standing immigrant communities. In contrast, informal volunteering was more common in areas with more recent humanitarian settlements. The chosen study sites reflect this distinction.

Findings

Invisible Volunteerism in the Neoliberal Era

This section highlights how volunteer initiatives in refugee settlement remain unrecognised in a neoliberal context, despite their crucial role in integration. Volunteers effectively complement professional services (Fratzke & Dorst, 2019). This study found that volunteers across urban and regional Australia dedicate time and resources to provide both short- and long-term support, fostering cross-cultural connections. Community-based volunteers build strong personal relationships with refugees through face-to-face interactions, offering daily support and emotional companionship. A member of a regional voluntary organisation in Armidale noted that volunteers have the freedom to form emotional bonds as part of their efforts:

Most volunteers are pleased about getting to know the family more closely and developing a personal relationship. Volunteers are there not only to teach English or solve the day-to-day life problems of refugees. Such bonding with the refugee also helps to provide emotional support, which does not necessarily need any materialistic resources (Volunteer, Armidale, Male, 2022)

Informal cross-cultural contact and friendship between local and refugee communities also assist in exchanging intercultural knowledge, ideas, and skills, enhancing mutual respect and trust. According to the President of an African community-based organisation in Auburn: ‘Cross-cultural interaction between refugees and the mainstream population sensitised everyone seeing people as human, not as aliens’ (Volunteer, Auburn, Female 2022).

Volunteer–refugee relationships enhance refugee’s sense of security. A professional service provider noted that volunteer home visits provide safety, as volunteers listen to kids read, play games, and engage in conversation (NGO professional, Auburn, Female). Local volunteers also sponsor, fundraise, donate, and build social networks that help refugees secure jobs and connect with local groups, reducing isolation. These findings align with Fratzke and Dorst’s (2019) assertion that volunteer involvement in social services offers significant emotional benefits and valuable social capital.

However, Settlement Service Australia’s report asserted that volunteers remain invisible despite being an essential pillar of refugee settlement in Australia (Settlement Council of Australia, 2019). Volunteer’s contributions are vulnerable to minimisation due to the construction of their contributions, especially by those employed in paid settlement service provision. Most of the professional service holders appreciated volunteer’s contributions towards refugees. However, in a few cases, they stressed how the informal nature of the volunteer’s work, without pay, is in no way comparable to their job. According to them, the volunteer’s contributions do not fit into the normative notion of 'formal settlement', and they deemed volunteer’s roles informal and theirs formal. This demarcation was also associated with the nature of the work, agency, and decision-making. According to an NGO official:

‘Unlike professional service holders, the volunteers are involved in softer settlement initiatives. For example, professionals are more involved in paperwork and planning, whereas volunteers are more into the execution of these plans’ (NGO professional, Armidale, Male)

The quotation implies that the professional service holder elevates their settlement-related planning and paperwork above that of the volunteers, who merely execute their plans. This binary does subtly devalue volunteer’s contributions and their dedicated time, and it points to the hierarchical relation and scope for influence.

While volunteers complemented professional service holder’s refugee settlement-related work (Fratzke & Dorst, 2019), the binary discussed above has other implications. The volunteers are viewed as non-experts, associated with their non-formal labour status (Turner et al., 2020). The prioritisation of settlement-related planning and paperwork by professional service holders is an example of labour that is focused on meeting the immediate needs of refugees. In contrast, the volunteer’s execution of the settlement plan could be seen as work which involves creative and productive activities that build broader resilience. The minimisation of the volunteer contributions could also be a consequence of the prioritisation of waged labour over other forms of effort.

It is challenging to measure volunteer’s work due to the informal definition of the effort. This neglect is despite the time-intensive tasks related to building long-term relationships. This is an effort that the formal staff do not have time for. When NGOs recruit or outsource volunteers, they face substantial challenges in gauging the outcome of that work. The NGO officials reported that they find measuring volunteer’s social and cultural contributions to refugee settlement initiatives challenging. They often characterised volunteer initiatives as 'intangible'. The nature of the work of volunteers, being emotional and relational, is often seen as too difficult to collect data on. A settlement service provider in Armidale acknowledged the largely invisible but substantial labour of volunteers in refugee settlements.

We are trying to ensure that what we do for refugee communities is tangible and easy to report. So, for instance, by monitoring and evaluating our project, we can quantify how many refugees got employed or how many received English courses. However, measuring the impact of volunteers is challenging, as their contributions are based on personal relationships. Still, I'm certain that if it could be measured, it would be incredible (Settlement service provider, Female, Armidale, 2021)

‘And we love quantitative data. And a lot of the work that a volunteer does cannot be calculated in numbers on a page’ (NGO service provider, Male, Armidale, 2021)

The difficulty in quantifying volunteer’s contributions has consequences when seeking additional training support and resources for volunteers. This was expressed by an NGO official who supervised a large group of volunteers: 'Reporting on the outcomes of volunteer’s contribution is challenging due to its intangible nature and it also means working out how you pay an organisation to provide those services is very complex, as well' (Settlement service provider, Male Armidale,2021). But the difficulty NGOs face in not being able to quantify and report the outcome of volunteer’s work is a benefit, insofar as that work remains non-valued, and effectively free.

A neoliberal setting of governance bolsters volunteerism, by delegating responsibilities to volunteers (Vrasti & Montsion, 2014). Yet volunteer’s contributions to refugee communities remain significantly minimised within the neoliberal setting. The informal nature of volunteer’s work, which most often does not have monetary value, explicitly non-values volunteer’s situated knowledge and locally responsive intercultural expertise. NGOs often find it challenging to measure volunteer’s social and cultural contributions to refugee settlement initiatives as they deem these initiatives intangible and hard to quantify, undermining resource requests for volunteers and their services. But this non-valuing fundamentally sustains a hierarchy of service, further enabling the ability the NGO’s have for mediating of neo-liberalism.

(Out)sourcing Public Services to Volunteers and NGOs

Outsourcing public services to civil society is a vital trait of neoliberal rollout governmentality (Burchell, 1991). Typically, the principle of cost-effectiveness guides such delegation of state responsibilities. In this system, the state maximises its power by withdrawing from social welfare responsibilities (rollback) and minimising costs (Burchell, 1991). Volunteer participants in the study stated that the Government's reluctance to spend on refugee settlement is partly ideological, as the Government is reluctant to support refugees and frames it as an additional burden. In this regard, a volunteer from Armidale said:

‘Government think it is a community responsibility, and communities will always be there to support their community. Government does not care about the frontline issues and everyday problems!’ (Volunteer, Armidale, Female, 2022)

According to the participants, the state had intentionally delegated its duties to community volunteers, primarily considering them cost-effective agents rather than valuable catalysts for change. It is noteworthy to mention that if volunteers are considered mere cost-effective agents, that hinders their considerable potential and possibilities (Nesbit et al., 2012). As one participant remarked, ‘We were just seen as free help, not as people with ideas or experience.’ (Volunteer, Auburn, Male, 2022). Volunteers are deeply dedicated to humankind and possess contextual skills and knowledge of their communities. But this resource will be underutilised if their ideas and creativity are not leveraged. Training and other resources would further enhance their refugee settlement efforts. Rollout services should not be seen as a cost-cutting initiative that leaves the sector without the resources necessary for the best use of volunteers.

It is noteworthy that although local volunteers offer significant contributions to refugee communities, drawing on outstanding localised knowledge, they are considerably underfunded. In this resource-constrained context, small volunteering organisation undertakes humanitarian work using personal funds or donations, which eventually restricts them from evaluating and scaling up their initiatives despite having innovative ideas and contextual knowledge. Regarding the difficulty arising from the inadequate funding, a volunteer at a regional community organisation said:

The significant difficulty for local volunteer organisation is that we depend on limited donations, which are insufficient to rollout multidimensional work. However, unlike Government and NGOs, we entail considerable knowledge of local context and needs. We undertake many initiatives for refugees, which the central Government is obliged to do. But we would like to contribute more structurally, for which we need proper funding. (Volunteer, Male, Armidale, 2022)

Participants of local volunteer organisation from rural and urban settings stated that Government provided funds to a few selected NGOs and overlooked grass-roots-level volunteer organisation. Moreover, participants said that big agencies could not do the same level of intensive groundwork as local volunteer organisation since the agencies have burdensome bureaucratic loads. In this way, NGOs are a mechanism through which to deliver services efficiently, by engaging and influencing volunteer humanitarians.

Smaller community-based organisation and volunteer groups face difficulties applying to the Government’s small funding schemes as they lack the resources, time, and skills to apply to bureaucratic funding mechanisms. Regarding the complexity of applying for government funds, the President of a volunteer organisation in Auburn, with a refugee background, said:

Nowadays, it becomes difficult for small volunteer organisation to apply for government funds as it becomes more bureaucratic and lengthier. It requires meeting with the local MP, which is difficult for us as we are not professionals. It requires a lot of paperwork (President of CBO, Female, Auburn, 2021).

This indicates how bureaucratic funding procedures make it difficult for volunteer organisation to apply for state funds. This reaffirms the dangers inherent in the dialogue between government and the NGOs and volunteers to whom service provision has been rolled out.

Governments located further from the communities they serve are increasingly influenced by neoliberal ideologies that prioritise economic efficiency and self-reliance. At higher levels of government, there is a strong emphasis on individuals being self-determining and entrepreneurial. This neo-liberal perspective is reshaping how policies are developed, and resources are allocated.

‘Moreover, recently, the Council’s focus has shifted from welfare services to money generation, which is why they see refugees as money-generating agents. Due to these complexities and emerging issues, less funding is coming to volunteer organisation’ (President of CBO, Female, Auburn, 2021)

This reflects the neoliberal discourse of worthy citizenship (Erickson, 2012), where the Council prioritises refugee economic efficiency through employment, entrepreneurship, and job creation. However, volunteer services may not always align with dominant ideas of valuable contributions, warranting further examination. As a result, Council is more likely to consider refugees as economic agents and divert their programmes to income generation initiatives. Unfortunately, such a shift also impacts the volunteer’s ability to get resources for their effort with refugees.

This study finds that funding crises often force volunteer organisation to halt initiatives abruptly. Participants noted that local organisation designed projects to meet community needs but frequently stop mid-project due to financial shortages. In a neoliberal context, governments can cut funding, shifting programme termination responsibility to NGOs. For example, during COVID-19, a community organisation in regional Armidale launched a digital education project for refugees but suspended it within months due to resource shortages and mobility restrictions. Without alternative funding, the project could not continue offline. Volunteers invested time and emotional energy, forming bonds with refugees; therefore, abrupt project endings were demoralising and created a sense of futility. Participants noted that such terminations left volunteers disappointed and hindered refugees, reinforcing feelings of systemic neglect.

NGOs and local volunteer organisation often receive fixed-term project funding from the Federal Government, which is especially short for innovative schemes. For instance, the President of an African Australian volunteer organisation in Auburn described an antiracism project initiated in response to bullying complaints from parents of newly settled African refugees. Key volunteers alerted school administrators about the racism, leading to a small grant from Auburn Council to run the project. They hired a part-time project manager, but the funding lasted only a year, preventing them from fully completing or continuing the initiative.

While conducting the study, we found that local volunteer organisation often built dependent relationships with well-funded NGOs (Richmond & Shields, 2005) to broaden their scope for volunteer humanitarianism amid funding crises. Volunteers from local organisation voiced their frustration over the Government’s tendency to allocate significant funds to well-established NGOs while neglecting the capabilities of local volunteer organisation. Despite being well-funded NGOs with paid staff and dedicated office space, they often delegated the critical settlement responsibilities to unpaid volunteers. According to the founding member of an urban volunteer organisation:

Every day, we receive multiple requests from NGOs to provide interpreting or one-to-one services to refugees. They can employ interpreters; they can do it all by themselves as they have an office and are paid. But they don't want to do these extra hours. So, whenever they feel an extra burden, they give it to volunteers (Founding member of volunteer organisation, Male, Auburn, 2022)

This reveals the use of volunteers as a reserve army of cultural labour to address funding shortages or service peaks. The broad sets of reasons for outsourcing to volunteers include NGO staff's lack of time, limited localised knowledge and expertise, and inadequate resources. According to an official of a formal NGO:

Resettlement service workers don’t have the time and ability to spend that much time with individual refugee families to address their needs. We don't have the resources, and we can’t offer the same service that volunteers can. So, it would be crazy for us to attempt to do that stuff (NGO service provider, Male, Armidale, 2022)

To lessen the service-related burden, NGOs partner with local volunteer organisation with localised expertise and dedicated time to undertake the social and cultural aspects of refugee settlement. This is seen as a more cost-effective approach. In principle, the potential to draw in volunteers to address peak workloads, especially if associated with an unexpected calamity (e.g. a refugee flow), is a reasonable practice. However, it would not be reasonable if that work is undervalued, poorly supported with training, or exploited in a business-as-usual manner.

It is essential to highlight that formal NGOs generally function within state-supported neoliberal temporal funding frameworks, and this temporality serves as a central tool of neoliberal governmentality (Riva et al., 2024). According to Richmond and Sheilds (2005), such temporal, unstable and restrictive funding regimes make the refugee settlement process more challenging. Temporal contract funding creates a precarious environment for service providers as these funding mechanisms fail to balance limited resources and expanding demand. Moreover, the contract funding process gives the state greater control and power over ground-level service providers by holding them accountable to the state and destabilising their autonomy and advocacy (Richmond & Sheilds, 2005).

A key issue from the research is that fixed-term project funding makes it difficult for NGOs to adopt a strategic, holistic approach, despite the need for wraparound services in refugee settlement. A service provider noted that settlement initiatives reveal many interrelated issues, but NGOs must follow restrictive contracts within set time frames, limiting their ability to address them comprehensively. For example, while Armidale has many services for refugee women, there are few for men or efforts to drive systemic behavioural change. Men-focused initiatives are essential to addressing broader issues like domestic violence, but funding constraints prevent NGOs from going beyond contract terms. Here we see how the state’s narrow priorities trump the locally perceived needs of volunteer humanitarians.

The study identified that when NGOs utilise the substantial pool of volunteers under the contract funding regime, they face internal challenges. Due to restrictive funding mechanisms, an insufficient number of paid service providers of NGOs have to manage a substantial pool of volunteers in a compact timeline. Managing unpaid volunteers becomes an additional burden on top of their everyday responsibilities. An NGO service provider commenting on the heavy load of managing unpaid volunteers said:

There should be an acknowledgement that managing volunteers is quite time-consuming. Again, I think many organisation see volunteers as a cost-effective way to meet the contractual obligations of the underfunded programmes they intended. And there's probably not as much thought put into how you manage those people (NGO service provider, Male, Armidale, 2021).

Professional service providers acknowledge that managing volunteers is time-consuming, which poses significant challenges due to limited resources. The stringent accountability mechanisms associated with government funding impose a heavy administrative load on NGO officials. This burden affects the capacity of paid service providers to manage and support volunteers, impacting both the efficiency of volunteer involvement in underfunded programmes and the relationships between NGO paid staff and volunteers.

While conducting the research, we found that NGOs find it difficult to provide resources, training, and physical space to volunteers. Non-profit agencies often assume that volunteers will not show up for training, discouraging them from investing time and money in volunteers (Heneman et al., 2003). In addition, modest budget allocations for volunteer humanitarian work significantly hinder the upskilling of volunteers. As a result, volunteers often face hurdles in developing cultural competencies and addressing the refugee population’s unique and complex needs. The NGO officials stressed the importance of incorporating special training sessions for volunteers as they are actively involved with refugee communities, which are constantly changing. These could include specialist training that focuses on developing volunteer’s interpersonal skills, initiation discussions, or how to continue tricky conversations. But due to resource and time constraints, NGOs are less able to offer this training to volunteers.

There has been a significant increase in community-based volunteer organisations supporting refugee communities, particularly during the Liberal Government’s tenure, which had a less supportive stance on refugee issues. Participants felt that negative government discourse (Klocker & Dunn, 2003) hinders the settlement process, with mainstream media also promoting intolerance towards refugees (Bleiker et al., 2014; Collins, 2013; Hodge, 2015; McAdam, 2014; Phillip, 2014). This sentiment was prevalent among participants, many of whom saw their efforts as a counter-narrative to state and media discourses. As one volunteer noted, ‘The Government’s reluctance to accept refugees and unfriendly policies ironically direct volunteers to engage in refugee settlement initiatives’ (Volunteer, Auburn, Female, 2022). An effective volunteer sector, therefore, can offer advocacy and support in an environment marked by political antipathy towards refugees.

This section argues that the state outsources refugee settlement to volunteers, reflecting a neoliberal, resource-constrained model where volunteers are viewed as cost-effective. However, limited government funding hampers their effectiveness. Without proper resources and government funding, small volunteering organisation undertakes humanitarian work using modest funding, which eventually restricts these organisations from evaluating and scaling up their initiatives. Formal NGOs in this area operate under fixed-term state funding within restrictive project-based funding regimes. These neoliberal contract funding regimes also create a precarious environment for professional and volunteer service providers, especially when balancing limited resources and expanded demand. NGOs are an effective mediating force of neo liberalism. They manage the relationship with the volunteer humanitarians and leverage non-valued labour in a way that serves the state’s needs, often trumping the local needs as identified by local volunteer humanitarians and local agencies.

The Ideological Conflict Between NGOs and Community-Based Volunteer Organisation

NGOs can become active agents in bolstering the neoliberal state (Timmer & Docka, 2018). They are susceptible to their donor’s values, ideologies, and worldviews (Tvedt, 1998). This study finds that due to contract-based projects, NGOs are bound by burdensome and arbitrary accountability mechanisms, including from government funders. In the process, the Government gains greater control in specifying outputs and controlling spending, while NGOs can lose their identity and autonomy to carry out their essential work. An NGO service provider said:

‘I guess our humanitarian settlement programme is quite prescriptive in how it delivers services. And that's very much connected to how we’re funded. And so that leaves quite a lot of potential gaps’ (NGO service provider, Female, Urban, 2022)

This suggests that NGOs have limited options for spending funds on humanitarian projects, as funding conditions narrowly dictate service delivery. NGO’s obligations to funders shift their internal focus, leading to increased professionalisation in the neoliberal era, where responding to donor demands takes precedence over the needs of the underprivileged (Wallace et al., 1997). Lacey and Ilcan (2006) note that the NGO sector increasingly frames volunteers as responsible citizens delivering public services. This responsibilisation process imposes a more rigorous action plan for volunteers, diverging from traditional views of volunteerism. Although volunteer labour is intentionally utilised in this process (Hartman et al., 2000; Marinetto, 2003; Medeiros, 2001), it is often perceived as altruistic rather than as labour (Lacey & Ilcan, 2006).

This study has observed that as a part of the responsibilisation process and to meet their contractual obligations, NGOs impose strict rules and accountability mechanisms on the volunteers, potentially threatening to silence their voice and autonomy. Through the process, NGOs reproduce the neoliberal narrative of control over the subordinate volunteers. According to the President of a voluntary organisation, who was speaking about the challenges of working for big agencies,

There were some rough patches at the beginning when we partnered with a big NGO. In the beginning, the renowned NGO had a Sydney-focused way of doing things, while we had a rural-focused way of doing things. And they were very protective of the refugees they were serving. They didn’t want to give us information about them or access them. Such strict rules and regulations caused our volunteers so much suffering and dissatisfaction. (President of voluntary organisation, Regional, Male, 2022)

This indicates that the prescriptive approach of NGOs towards volunteers can lead to dissatisfaction among volunteers. The NGO’s strict rules and protective measures towards refugees restricted volunteer’s agency and their more spontaneous way of doing things. Protecting privacy and risk aversion are defensible and professional tactics, reflecting a professionalised social work sector, but this can be seen by volunteers as bureaucratic and overly regulatory.

To counter local volunteer’s dissatisfaction with working with NGOs, a humanitarian official from an NGO emphasised that when they partnered with a local volunteer organisation, there was a bit of separation between them. Because they found the voluntary organisation’s approach towards refugees was quite different from theirs. According to the humanitarian official of the NGO:

The community organisation 'X' had sponsored a minimal number of people to come to Armidale in the past. And their approach to supporting refugee families was an intensive wraparound approach that covered just a few refugee families, whereas we stepped in holding a government contract to settle a vastly considerable number of refugee families compared to that (NGO service provider, Regional, Male, 2022).

He also stated that eventually, they resolved the conflict by leaving the 'softer' side of the settlement to volunteers, whereas they shouldered the 'harder' side. Note that in this case, the harder side indicates settlement-related paperwork, whereas the softer side indicates field execution of such a plan. Interestingly, even though volunteers are burdened with an excessive workload without pay, their contributions are often overshadowed by paid humanitarian workers due to the underlying power gaps between the two groups.

This study identified significant ideological differences between formal NGOs and volunteer organisation, leading to notable challenges. NGOs tend to enforce professional boundaries, while volunteer organisation foster flexible relationships with refugees, causing confusion and tension among volunteers. For instance, NGOs often impose strict rules, such as prohibiting hugs or accepting gifts, which can hinder volunteers from forming deeper connections. Volunteers noted that refusing food from refugees can be seen as insulting, as sharing food is a vital cultural bonding activity. NGO-imposed boundaries can frustrate volunteers, who feel that the professional approach conflicts with the philosophy of volunteerism, which should prioritise community relationship building.

Professional service providers often prefer volunteers to maintain boundaries, as emotional attachment can hinder reporting of critical issues like domestic violence. Therefore, they prefer volunteers to maintain professional boundaries. Strong negotiation between NGOs and volunteers could minimise such ideological conflicts. For instance, the study found that when a well-established NGO collaborated with a community organisation in Armidale, they applied an urban project model without considering the regional context and imposed strict rules on volunteers of the community organisation. However, after over a year of conflict, the NGO realised that the refugee community in Armidale has a very different kind of community than in Sydney or other cities. Eventually, through negotiation, the NGO loosened some of their rules about professional boundaries, and the local voluntary organisation tightened some of its laxity around security, such as the mandatory requirement of maintaining working with children and police checks by all volunteers. These are hopeful evidence of compromise that improves the service, and which enhances refugee settlement.

Conclusion

This study critically outlined the challenges that volunteers face in a neoliberal setting when undertaking pro-social actions in settling refugee communities. It is worth noting that very often voluntary acts are demonstrated as an act of virtue or a humanitarian responsibility and their action is portrayed as a commitment to mindful citizenship (Hartman et al., 2000; Marinetto, 2003; Medeiros, 2001; Muehlebach, 2012; Vrasti & Montsion, 2014). This study critically identified several shortcomings of such a conceptualisation of volunteerism, which has not received much attention in earlier literature. This study pinpointed how volunteer’s pro-social intercultural efforts are taken for granted within the neoliberal context. It is important to note that throughout history, the essence of volunteerism has been rooted in sincere motivations, often driven by religious beliefs or ethical values (Von Essen et al., 2015). However, a noteworthy issue arises when volunteerism undergoes a transformation, becoming a core component of the responsibilisation process within the context of neoliberalism. This transformation implies a subtle shift, where volunteerism is sometimes exploited to transfer responsibilities from the state to non-governmental entities and volunteers (Dekker and Halman, 2003). This shift could compromise the inherent altruistic nature of volunteerism, turning it into a tool for cost-cutting and the privatisation of social services. This raises crucial concerns about the ethical dimensions of volunteerism, as its genuine intentions may be overshadowed by broader socio-political agenda (Von Essen et al., 2015). Moreover, such responsibilisation of volunteers in a neoliberal context tactfully excludes them from obtaining adequate resources, training, as well as fair recognition. This further embeds a power differential where volunteers are beholden to the mechanisms of state power which controls the message and the distribution of resources through measures that exploit volunteer’s sense of responsibility and civic commitment, and which minimise state responsibility and accountability. This politics of this power play within a neoliberal framing has gained insufficient attention in earlier research.

While critiquing aspects of neoliberalism, it’s important to recognise that it encourages and values volunteering by shifting state responsibilities to volunteers (Vrasti & Montsion, 2014). Neoliberal states promote altruism in volunteerism, facilitating volunteer mobilisation (Muehlebach, 2012). Our argument is not merely criticising rollout aspects of neoliberalism, but also to consider its positive strength in mobilising volunteers and promoting altruism. By acknowledging the neoliberal context, we are critically identifying what feasible actions should be taken to effectively utilise the strengths of volunteers associated with refugee settlement. In this regard, and as identified in this study, it is crucial for policymakers to acknowledge that volunteers can complement professional service providers with their individualised assistance to meet refugee needs (Fratzke & Dorst, 2019). In many cases, volunteers, due to their flexible and less bureaucratic approach to humanitarian work, as well as their outstanding situated knowledge and expertise, can often surpass professional service providers in offering time, emotional support, and social capital to refugees. Policymakers should recognise this potential as well to ensure that volunteer’s refugee settlement initiatives are not seen merely as cost-free or cost-saving measures. Instead, they require strategic investment and ongoing support (Fratzke & Dorst, 2019). It is crucial to develop a comprehensive policy framework to address the challenges faced by volunteers in settling refugees within a neoliberal framework. This framework should ensure fair compensation and recognition for contributions, implementing training and capacity-building programmes tailored to local needs, establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess effectiveness, and implementing policies to prevent exploitation through cost-cutting. These measures would enhance the effectiveness of volunteers in supporting refugee settlement and integration efforts while ensuring their well-being and recognition for their valuable contributions. While beyond the scope of this paper, future research could examine the prevalence and impacts of the neoliberal model on the refugee settlement sector more broadly, both beyond the geographic methodology utilised in this research and in terms of the implications for effective service delivery and for positive settlement outcomes. This would ensure a more responsive, better resourced system prevailed.