$200 Million Is Coming for Community Organisations. None of It Pays for Delivery.
$200 Million Is Coming for Community Organisations. None of It Pays for Delivery.
The Inclusive Communities Fund is capability funding, not program funding. That single distinction changes how it hits your revenue line, your overhead recovery and your year-four cash position.
Consultation on the design of the Inclusive Communities Fund closed at the end of August. The Fund is $200 million over three years from 2026-27, and the first funding round is expected to open by June 2027.
Most of the sector commentary so far has been about who should be eligible and how co-design should work — both legitimate questions, and the disability advocacy sector has done the heavy lifting on them. What has had almost no attention is a single sentence in the design material that matters more to a finance function than the eligibility rules do.
The Fund will not pay for the delivery of community activities. It will fund community organisations to strengthen their capability to offer more inclusive and accessible ones.
That is a design choice, not an oversight, and it is defensible policy. It is also a different financial instrument from the grant most community organisations are set up to receive, and the differences do not show up in the program plan. They show up in the accounts.
|
$200m / 3 years
Committed from 2026-27 to build the capability of community organisations — sports clubs, theatre groups, community gardens, volunteering groups, multicultural organisations — to include people with disability.
|
By June 2027
When the first funding round is expected to begin. The design is still being settled now, which means the planning window is this financial year, not next.
|
Capability money and program money behave differently
A program grant has a natural shape. You are paid to deliver a defined quantity of something to defined people over a defined period. The obligations are specific, the acquittal is a count, and the revenue recognition question usually answers itself.
Capability funding has no delivery count. You are paid to become able to do something — to train staff, redesign a facility, rewrite an access policy, buy equipment, build a volunteer induction that works for people with disability. The output is a changed organisation, not a delivered service.
That difference is exactly where the accounting question lives. Where an enforceable agreement contains sufficiently specific performance obligations, the transaction falls to AASB 15 and income is recognised as those obligations are satisfied. Where it does not, AASB 1058 applies and income is generally recognised when the entity obtains control of the funds. "Deliver 400 hours of supported recreation to plan-managed participants" is specific. "Improve the accessibility of your programs" may not be — and a capability grant is structurally more likely than a program grant to sit on the wrong side of that line.
I want to be careful here, because the Fund's grant agreements do not exist yet and nobody — including me — can tell you how they will be drafted. Milestone-based drafting would pull a capability grant into AASB 15 and spread the income across the term; loose capability language would not. The point is not that the answer is known. The point is that this is the question to ask when the guidelines land, and that a board reading a headline number will not think to ask it. If a three-year capability grant recognises largely on receipt, an organisation books a surplus in year one and carries the cost in years two and three. That is a perfectly correct set of accounts that will be badly misread by anyone who only sees the bottom line.
Overhead recovery on money that is all overhead
The second issue is stranger, and I have not seen it discussed anywhere.
Most community organisations negotiate overhead recovery as a percentage on top of direct program cost. The logic is that the program consumes some finance, HR, IT and management capacity, and the grant should carry a share of it.
Capability funding inverts that. Much of what the money buys is the corporate function — policy work, training, systems, facility change, governance time. If you apply a conventional overhead percentage on top, you are recovering overhead on overhead. If you don't, you may be under-recovering the very real management time a capability project consumes, which for a small organisation is often the executive's own hours and is the scarcest resource in the building.
Neither error is caught by a standard budget template, because the template assumes a direct-cost base that this funding does not have. The practical response is to cost capability work bottom-up in hours against named roles before you build the budget, and to decide deliberately what the recovery treatment is — rather than letting the spreadsheet decide it by default.
Year four is in the design
The Fund is three years. Capability projects produce standing cost.
If a grant funds an access coordinator, a training programme and a set of adjusted facilities, then at the end of year three you do not return to the starting position — you hold an ongoing obligation with no funding attached to it. The staff member is employed. The facility needs maintaining. The programme you made accessible is now attended by people who will notice if it stops.
This is a familiar pattern to anyone who has worked through a grant expiry, and it is entirely manageable if it is modelled at application. It is close to unmanageable if it is discovered in year three. The discipline is unglamorous: separate the one-off capability spend from the recurring cost it creates, put the recurring cost into the forward budget from day one, and put a number on it in the board paper that approves the application. Not the acquittal paper. The application paper.
Where AI is genuinely useful in this, and where it isn't
Grant work attracts a lot of loose talk about AI, most of which is about drafting the application. That is the least valuable place to use it and the easiest place to get caught, because an assessor reading forty submissions can spot generic language faster than you can generate it.
The useful applications are narrower and sit either side of the writing.
Before. Comparing draft guidelines against your existing funding agreements to find where obligations collide — a reporting cycle that doesn't align, an unspent-funds clause that conflicts, an asset ownership term that contradicts a lease. This is structured comparison across documents you already hold, which is the kind of work language models do reliably and humans do slowly.
After. Building and maintaining the obligation register for the agreement once it is signed — what is due, when, to whom, triggered by what. Most organisations rebuild this from the deed every time someone asks, which is why the answers drift.
What AI should not do is decide whether your organisation meets an eligibility criterion, or judge whether a performance obligation is sufficiently specific. Those are judgement calls with consequences, and the model has no stake in getting them right.
Four things worth doing this financial year
Read the guidelines as a finance document when they land. Not as a program document. The clauses that matter to you are performance obligations, unspent funds, asset treatment, reporting triggers and termination notice — in that order.
Decide your recovery position before you build a budget. Cost the management time bottom-up. Do not apply a program overhead percentage to a capability cost base without thinking about what it means.
Model year four at application. One line in the board paper: here is the recurring cost this project creates, and here is where it sits in the forward budget from 2029-30.
Ask your auditor the recognition question early. Not at year end. A five-minute conversation when the guidelines are published is worth considerably more than a note two weeks before signing.
Do you know what your last capability grant costs you now that it's finished?
Most organisations can answer that for program funding and not for capability funding, because nobody separated the one-off from the recurring at the start. PFL provides senior-level outsourced finance, management reporting, and AI automation for Australian NFP, NDIS, and SME organisations — including getting the forward cost of a funded project onto the page before it's approved.
Talk to PFL →Department of Health, Disability and Ageing — Inclusive Communities Fund consultation
NDIS — Have your say on the Inclusive Communities Fund (6 August 2026)
Minister for Health and Ageing — Consultation open: helping community groups better include people with disability
People with Disability Australia — Submission to the Inclusive Communities Fund consultation
AASB — AASB 1058 Income of Not-for-Profit Entities
Comments
Post a Comment