Insights from the Round 1 2026 Grant Round
What the data tells us about need, demand, and opportunity in remote Australia
Round 1 of 2026 was our most competitive round to date. With over 80 applications received requesting a combined total of over $325,000, and a budget of $60,000 to allocate, we were only able to fund 10 projects, a success rate of around 13%.
Behind every declined application is a real person or organisation doing meaningful work in remote Australia, and the gap between what was asked for and what we could give is something we sit with seriously.
This article looks beyond the funded projects to examine what the round told us more broadly about who is applying, where they're coming from, and what remote Australia needs.
Who Is Applying: Individuals vs Organisations
Applications were split roughly 45% individuals and 55% organisations, a fairly even spread that reflects the dual focus of our updated guidelines. However, the funded outcomes skewed toward organisations, with seven of the ten successful grants going to organisational applicants.
This isn't a deliberate bias, it reflects that organisational applications this round tended to demonstrate stronger community impact, clearer budgets, and more measurable outcomes.
Individual applications were more variable in quality. The most common weaknesses were budgets that included personal living costs which sit outside our guidelines, and requests that didn't clearly connect the applicant's remoteness to the specific barrier they were facing.
Where Applications Are Coming From
Applications came from every state and territory with a remote or very remote population, though the Northern Territory and Queensland dominated, together accounting for more than half of all applications. Western Australia was the next strongest, with a cluster of applications from the Kimberley and Pilbara regions.
A smaller number of applications came from remote New South Wales and South Australia, and we received several from organisations based in metropolitan areas seeking to deliver programs in remote communities. These applications were generally less competitive, our guidelines give additional weight to organisations that are based in remote communities or have deep, established relationships there, rather than those delivering from a distance.
One trend worth noting: a meaningful proportion of applications came from communities experiencing compounding pressures. Flooding in the Katherine region, drought recovery in parts of South Australia and Queensland, and the announced closure of a major mine in Arnhem Land were all cited as context in applications. These macro pressures shape what communities need and when, and they're informing how we think about future rounds.
What People Are Applying For: Category Breakdown
Breaking applications down by focus area reveals a clear picture of where demand is concentrated:
Health and workforce development was the single largest category, accounting for roughly a quarter of all applications. These ranged from clinical outreach programs and early childhood intervention to professional development for remote health practitioners. This category had the strongest overall application quality and the highest funded rate.
Education and training was the second largest category, spanning distance education infrastructure, student placements, vocational training, career development programs, and support for emerging professionals completing qualifications. Several compelling applications in this space were not funded due to budget constraints rather than quality concerns.
Community connection and wellbeing accounted for a significant share of applications, reflecting the social pressures of isolation, requests for community gathering spaces, family connection programs, and initiatives that bring remote people together.
Sports and recreation represented a surprising proportion of applications, close to 15% of the total, most of which were ineligible under our guidelines. Applications for travel to sporting competitions, team uniforms, and sports equipment are not fundable under either the individual or organisation guidelines, and we encourage applicants to review the eligibility criteria carefully before applying.
Conservation and land management, arts and culture, and digital and infrastructure projects each represented smaller shares of the total, with mixed eligibility across the group.
Common Reasons Applications Were Unsuccessful
Beyond ineligible categories like sport, the most common reasons applications were unsuccessful this round were:
- Insufficient connection to remoteness: Applications that didn't clearly explain how the applicant's geographic isolation created the specific barrier they were seeking to overcome.
- Personal living costs included in budgets: Rent, food, utilities and clothing featured in a number of individual budgets and are not fundable under our guidelines.
- Applicants not based in or sufficiently connected to remote communities: Several organisational applications were from metro-based organisations with limited established presence in the communities they proposed to serve.
- Strong applications, insufficient budget: A number of high-quality applications were simply not funded because we ran out of budget. These applicants are strongly encouraged to reapply.
What This Tells Us
Round 1 2026 confirmed something we already suspected: demand for CAT funding significantly outstrips what we can currently provide. The $325,000 requested against a $60,000 budget represents a funding gap of $265,000, in a single round, from a single country.
The quality of applications is improving, particularly from organisations. The reach of our guidelines is working, we are hearing from communities and individuals we haven't before. And the themes coming through, health access, education equity, community connection, are precisely the areas our mission was built to address.
As we head into Round 2, we will continue to prioritise applications that demonstrate a clear link between remoteness and need, a realistic and well-evidenced budget, and a genuine benefit to the community beyond the individual applicant.
Round 2 opens 1 June 2026.
See More






