Needs source-date, figure, and framing review before quoting externally. Align it by checking the source date, the main figures, whether it still supports the CivicGraph / ACT operating map, and what action it should send people to next.
Funding Deserts
Where disadvantage is highest and investment is lowest — 0 Local Government Areas scored by SEIFA disadvantage, remoteness, entity coverage, and funding flows. 0 LGAs score above 100, indicating severe geographic underinvestment relative to need.
Source: SEIFA 2021 (ABS) × Remoteness Areas (ABS) × CivicGraph Entity Graph × Justice Funding × AusTender Procurement.
Worst Funding Deserts
The 30 LGAs with the highest desert scores: most disadvantaged, most remote, fewest service providers, and least funded. Many have zero indexed entities and zero tracked funding — invisible to the systems designed to help them.
| # | LGA | Entities | Desert Score |
|---|
The Urban-Remote Divide
The data is unambiguous: remoteness drives desert scores. Very Remote LGAs average — on the desert index versus — for Major Cities — a —x disparity.
Average Desert Score by Remoteness
| Remoteness | LGAs | Avg Desert Score |
|---|
Desert Scores by State
State-level aggregates reveal structural differences in how funding reaches communities. States with large remote footprints carry higher average desert scores.
| State | LGAs | Avg Desert Score |
|---|
Best Funded vs Worst Funded
Side-by-side comparison of the 10 most underserved and 10 best-served LGAs. The contrast reveals the structural geography of Australian social investment.
Most Underserved (Worst Deserts)
| # | LGA | Score |
|---|
Best Served (Lowest Desert Scores)
| # | LGA | Score |
|---|
Methodology
SEIFA IRSD (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas): The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2021 Census). Each postcode is assigned a decile from 1 (most disadvantaged) to 10 (least disadvantaged). LGA-level scores are averaged across constituent postcodes. A low SEIFA decile means the area has higher proportions of people with low incomes, lower educational attainment, and higher unemployment.
Remoteness classification: Based on the ABS Remoteness Areas framework (ARIA+ 2021), which classifies geography into five categories: Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote, and Very Remote. Each category reflects distance from service centres and population density.
Entity coverage: The count of CivicGraph-indexed entities (charities, service providers, community organisations) operating within each LGA. A low entity count signals sparse service infrastructure — fewer organisations competing for or delivering services.
Desert score formula: A composite index combining four dimensions:
- SEIFA IRSD decile (inverted, scaled 0–100) — lower decile = higher disadvantage = higher score
- Remoteness category (0–40) — Very Remote = 40, Remote = 30, Outer Regional = 20, Inner Regional = 10, Major Cities = 0
- Entity coverage gap (0–30) — fewer entities per LGA = higher score
- Funding gap (0–20) — less tracked funding = higher score
Maximum theoretical score: 190. A score above 100 indicates a severely underserved area where disadvantage, remoteness, and lack of service infrastructure compound.
Data sources: AusTender procurement contracts, state justice funding programs, political donation records (AEC), ACNC charity registry, philanthropic foundation giving, and ATO tax transparency data. All cross-referenced by ABN and mapped to postcodes and LGAs via the CivicGraph entity graph.
Limitations: The desert score measures tracked funding and entity presence within CivicGraph's indexed datasets. It does not capture all government programs (e.g., direct state service delivery, Medicare, Centrelink payments). LGAs with zero entities may have organisations not yet indexed. The score is most useful as a relative comparison between LGAs, not as an absolute measure of service access.
Explore the Data
Dive deeper into funding deserts, explore place-level data, or see how power concentrates across the system.
Download: Funding Deserts Geographic Analysis
Get the complete report as a formatted PDF with all charts, tables, and data — ready to attach to board papers or share with colleagues.
Free for researchers, journalists, and community organisations. No spam, ever.