Disability Advocacy Service
DAS HQ
Funding · internal
DPSC GO8264 · Six applications

DPSC War Room.

Disability Peer Support and Connections Program 2026-27 (Dept of Health, Disability and Ageing). Three streams × (individual + consortium-lead) = 6 applications, $20.8M total ask (placeholders). Closes 2:00pm AEST Wednesday 2 July 2026. Questions to Grant.ATM@health.gov.au close 25 June 2026.

💣
--d --:--:--.---
Questions close in
…
Grant.ATM@health.gov.au
Applications
6
2 per stream max — 1 individual + 1 consortium-lead
Writing load
18
criterion responses × 3,500 chars + 18 attachment templates

Internal schedule

proposed — working assumption, drag as needed
13 June 2026 All 6 project concepts locked
16 June 2026 Scott confirms consortium partners + first contact made
20 June 2026 Letters of support requested from all partners
25 June 2026 QUESTIONS DEADLINE — last day to ask Grant.ATM@health.gov.au anything
27 June 2026 Full drafts of all 6 applications complete
29 June 2026 Internal review pass done; attachments final
30 June 2026 SUBMIT all 6 (48hr buffer before close)
2 July 2026 Applications close 2:00pm AEST

Checklist matrix

every application × every artefact · ✓ done · ○ to do · — n/a
Artefact Stream 1 Individual Stream 1 Consortium Stream 2 Individual Stream 2 Consortium Stream 3 Individual Stream 3 Consortium
Project concept locked ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Criterion 1 — Alignment drafted ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Criterion 2 — Capacity drafted ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Criterion 3 — Value for money drafted ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Activity Work Plan (template) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Risk Management Plan (template) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Indicative Activity Budget (template) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Financials — 2yr P&L + ratio data ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Form admin sections + declarations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Internal review pass ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
SUBMITTED ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Consortium partners confirmed — ○ — ○ — ○
Letters of support requested — ○ — ○ — ○

Rules that bite

Guidelines V2 + Addenda 1–3 + FAQs v3 — verified against source PDFs
  • 3 assessment criteria, equally weighted; must score at least Average (3/5) on ALL three to be fundable.
  • Max 2 applications per stream: 1 as individual org + 1 as consortium LEAD. Each must propose genuinely different activities.
  • Non-lead consortium membership does NOT count against the 2-per-stream cap and does not disadvantage other applications (Addendum 3).
  • Form fields are plain text — no bullets, bold or em-dashes. Allowed chars: A-Z 0-9 ( ) , . ' & - / \ @ $ % only.
  • Attachments: 2MB each. Mandatory: Activity Work Plan + Risk Management Plan + Indicative Activity Budget (GrantConnect templates).
  • Ineligible (§5.4): delivery of systemic or individual advocacy (SELF-advocacy excepted), funding in support of individuals, research as sole activity, duplicating the Disability Gateway, general admin subsidy, activities funded by other government programs.
  • Eligible: wages directly delivering services, IT hardware/software directly related, short-term consultants, in-kind contributions. Overheads ineligible (Addendum 2).
  • Condition for Participation: existing ILC grants (Speaking Up) must terminate 1 business day before DPSC activity commences. Unspent funds may roll in where scope aligns.
  • Mid-point performance review mandatory — independent third party, commissioned by grantee, cost goes in the budget (up to 15% allowed; 2-5% realistic).
  • WGEA: orgs under 100 employees exempt (Addendum 2). DSI Act regulated-activity question has a 'None of the above' option (Addendum 3).
  • Consortium leads are solely accountable to the Commonwealth; letters of support from all partners required at execution.

Criterion cheat sheet

the bones — fill plain text under each heading, no formatting in form fields

Criterion 1 — Alignment (3,500 chars, ~500 words)

Attach: Activity Work Plan (GrantConnect template)
  • THE PROBLEM / NEED — cohort, gap, evidence (DRI consultation findings, Speaking Up priorities: Transport / Built Environment / Health, remote NT stats)
  • WHAT WE'LL DO — the activity in plain English, framed as self-advocacy / capacity / information, never advocacy delivery
  • WHY IT'S NEEDED HERE — geography rationale, First Nations density, no equivalent service
  • HOW IT MEETS STREAM OBJECTIVES — map to §2 outcomes using the Guidelines' own vocabulary
  • DELIVERY OVER THE GRANT PERIOD — Y1 build/pilot, Y2 scale, Y3+ refine; include stand-up lead time
  • WHERE + HOW — SA3s + delivery mode

Criterion 2 — Capacity (3,500 chars, ~500 words)

Attach: Risk Management Plan (GrantConnect template)
  • EXPERTISE + TRACK RECORD — 15 yrs NDAP / NDIS Appeals / DAIS / DRI / Speaking Up; numbers
  • EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR PROJECTS — honest reframe: advocacy expertise translated into self-advocacy capability
  • PWD INVOLVEMENT IN DESIGN — lived-experience advisory committee, co-design provenance
  • LONGER-TERM DELIVERY — 15+ yrs continuous Commonwealth funding; CAPS group 10yr continuity
  • PARTNERSHIPS — consortium members + Q&S Commission consortium as live proof
  • FIRST NATIONS PARTNERSHIP — named partners, 'direct partnership' language from §6

Criterion 3 — Efficient use of funds (3,500 chars, ~500 words)

Attach: Indicative Activity Budget (GrantConnect template)
  • EXPENDITURE → OUTCOMES LOGIC — per major line: this $ → this outcome → this objective
  • BUDGET APPROPRIATENESS — ask matches scope; consortium split justified
  • COST-EFFECTIVENESS — per-unit-of-impact framing; tech built once serves many at marginal cost (this is where automation wins)
  • ETHICAL PRINCIPLES — co-design on costing, transparent budgeting, NFP procurement standards

Concept briefs live in _JOB_DAS/_Grants/Disability_Peer_Support/ — source docs, addenda and the application form structure are all there. Scoring: 1–5 per criterion, equal weighting, ≥3 on all three or the application is not considered.