State of the Disability Sector Report 2025
Without structural adjustment, the NDIS risks losing the very providers it depends on – those who champion quality, dignity, choice, and inclusion every day. This includes providers who will be critical to the successful delivery of supports that sit outside of the NDIS, for example for children, families and people with psychosocial disability as these programs evolve.
Quality providers remain the sector’s strongest asset amid rising pressures.
Contents
The state of play ……………………………………. 2
The state of disability reform ……………………. 5
The state of quality and safeguarding …………… 28
The state of the workforce ………………………… 35
The state of disability employment ……………….. 44
Conclusion ……………………………………….. 50
Appendix One ……………………………………… 51
The state of play
The 2025 State of the Disability Sector Report reflects another year marked by financial pressure, policy uncertainty, and operational challenges across Australia’s disability services landscape. It also underscores the continuing resilience and adaptability of quality disability service providers.
Without structural adjustment, the NDIS risks losing the very providers it depends on, those who champion quality, dignity, choice, and inclusion every day. This includes providers who will be critical to the successful delivery of supports that sit outside of the NDIS—for example for children, families and people with psychosocial disability—as these programs evolve.
Financial pressures and unfunded supports
Survey results show the sector is under significant strain. Nearly half of providers reported a financial loss in 2024–25, while others broke even or managed only small surpluses. Eighty-one per cent of respondents delivering NDIS supports report that they cannot continue to provide services at current prices. This is not an abstract figure. It represents fewer local services, staff redundancies, reduced innovation, and growing risk for participants who depend on quality providers for continuity of support.
A defining feature of this year’s report is the ongoing burden of unfunded supports. Seventy-seven per cent of organisations delivered unfunded services last year, at an average cost of almost $500,000 per provider. Essential activities such as support coordination, crisis response, and navigation across systems like child protection,
Page 5
education, health and mental health, housing Keeping the system and justice remain vital but are not recognised in the current pricing model, compelling afloat at their own providers to cover these costs without expense reimbursement. When factored together, financial Examples from member organisations losses and unfunded supports highlight this reality. Providers supported paint a stark picture of a sector that communities during natural disasters, such is cross-subsidising government as Cyclone Alfred, without funding available programs to sustain participant to cover these costs. Others bridged gaps outcomes at the expense of their own for participants with underfunded or expired financial sustainability. This quiet, plans, sustaining supports until new approvals uncompensated labour has become were processed. These tasks have become structural. It keeps the system embedded — but not funded — in routine afloat, but at the expense of the very service delivery. providers the NDIS and disability ecosystem depends on.
Quality and safeguarding amid pricing
Navigating strained relationships: a failure - call for market stewardship
Providers continue to meet obligations under the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework even as compliance costs outstrip available funding. The framework remains essential for accountability and participant safety, but it only applies to some parts of the sector.
Registered providers face audit requirements and higher costs while receiving the same pricing as unregistered organisations. This puts safeguards at risk and affects the consistency of supports.
Still, quality providers continue to demonstrate leadership and commitment. They invest in training new staff, embed participant voice in governance, and pursue continuous improvement even under tightening and unsustainable budgets. Their actions embody the values the NDIS was built to uphold: human rights, choice, control, and inclusion. But these values cannot thrive in a market that undervalues quality itself.
Employment services: inclusion through opportunity
Employment remains one of the most powerful levers for inclusion, yet the disability employment ecosystem remains under strain. Eighty-two per cent of supported employment providers reported a worsening financial outlook, and only 16 per cent expressed optimism for participants with high support needs.
The transition to Inclusive Employment Australia brings offers modest optimism when compared to the current DES model. Though concerns remain, with half of respondents either unsure that the right incentives or greater equity have been built into the new funding structure.
Adaptation and collaboration
Providers are responding to challenges by seeking efficiencies and innovation. More than 90% report efforts to become more efficient through digital transformation, streamlining management, and better use of data. Many have invested in technology to improve rostering, workforce pathways, and participant engagement.
In rural and remote areas, collaboration through shared infrastructure and co-location remains vital. These strategies foster resilience but cannot substitute for sustainable funding. Increasingly, boards must balance financial viability against organisational purpose and mission, a choice becoming more difficult.
This report is both a reflection and a call to action. NDS will continue to lead this charge — amplifying the voice of quality providers, shaping reform and advocating for a disability support system that is inclusive, sustainable, and responsive to the needs of people with disability and the organisations that support them.
Page 7
The state of the operating environment
The 2025 National Disability Services State cross-section of providers across Australia. of the Disability Sector annual survey was Respondents included organisations of conducted by the Centre for Disability varying sizes, service types, and geographic Research and Policy at the University of locations — ranging from metropolitan Sydney. hubs to remote communities. The survey reflects perspectives from both registered Usable responses were received from 290 and unregistered providers, including those gorganisations, a lower response rate than delivering core supports, employment the last few years, perhaps reflecting the services, and specialist supports. A summary struggles faced by the sector, with many of respondent demographics is provided ongoing changes occurring and little in Appendix One, supporting a robust and certainty in the operating environment. representative snapshot of sector conditions This year’s State of the Disability Sector in 2025. survey captured insights from a diverse
Disability Sector Operating Conditions
We asked respondents for further comments about the operating environment, disability sector, or actions by the Commonwealth or their state government’s support of disability services in the last 12 months.
Disability sector operating conditions remain in crisis, with 85 per cent of respondents indicating that conditions in the non-government disability sector worsened, and only one per cent reporting improvement. Although this represents a slight easing from the record 88 per cent reporting worsening conditions in 2024, it nevertheless reflects an overwhelmingly negative sentiment across the sector. By contrast, views on the wider Australian economy were less severe: 58 per cent of respondents believed conditions had worsened, compared with 73 per cent in 2024, while nine per cent indicated an improvement. Trendlines included on Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the persistence of negative sentiment in both areas over the past decade. This is particularly pronounced in the non-government disability sector.
“A central issue continues to be the disconnect between the expectations placed on providers by the NDIS and the NDIS Commission, and their own ability to uphold those standards. This imbalance has created a complex and often inconsistent operating environment.” WA small for-profit
Figure 1 Operating condtions in the non-government disability sector
| Year | Improved (%) | Worsened (%) | Trend - improved (%) | Trend - worsened (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | ||||
| 2015 | ||||
| 2016 | ||||
| 2017 | ||||
| 2018 | ||||
| 2019 | ||||
| 2020 | ||||
| 2021 | ||||
| 2022 | ||||
| 2023 | ||||
| 2024 | ||||
| 2025 |
“We have an obligation to ensure NDIS operating environment the viability and sustainability of our
c Perspectives of the NDIS operating organisation. However, we have a responsibility and commitment to ensure
lack of clear direction of what the future map looks like creates a greater uncertainty which we need to invest in creating certainty for all we support.“
QLD large not-for-profit
“The changes are sudden. Collaboration is not done in the correct way.” VIC small for-profit
“Delivering services in remote areas and supporting priority groups with complex needs present further challenges.” QLD medium not-for-profit
Figure 2 Operating condtions in the wider Australian economy
100%
80% 74% 73% 67% 68% 60% 58% 58%
47%
40% 39% 29% 26% 25% 23% 20% 18% 18% 13% 14% 11% 9% 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 2% 0%
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Improved Worsened Trend - improved Trend - worsened
Page 10
well. Three in five respondents reported that Trends over time demonstrate that there are too many unnecessary rules and the situation continues to deteriorate. regulations to follow. Disagreement that NDIS policy reforms are heading in the right direction has continued Concerns about sustainability were to rise in the recent years — from 20 per cent widespread, with 81 per cent of respondents in 2022, to 26 per cent in 2023, 49 per cent in worried about being able to provide services 2024, and now reaching 55 per cent in 2025. at current prices and 56 per cent believing Moreover, disagreement with the statement that the risks the NDIS presents outweigh “The NDIA is working well with providers” The opportunities. Operational pressures began rising from 2021, culminating in a are also pronounced: 84 per cent reported sharp increase to 84 per cent in 2024. In their leadership team spent too much time 2025, the figure eased slightly to 82 per cent dealing with NDIS changes, 80 per cent but remained exceptionally high compared said their staff were exhausted by ongoing with earlier years. changes, and 79 per cent felt that helping people understand and navigate the scheme was taking them away from service provision. Finally, 72 per cent believed there Concerns about is insufficient advocacy for the people they sustainability weresupport. widespread
Figure 3 The NDIS operating environment
NDIS policy reforms are heading in the direction right direction
The NDIA is working well with providers 82% 14%
The NDIS policy environment is uncertain 92%
The risks that the NDIS presents to my organisation outweigh the opportunities 14% 30% 56%
We are worried we won’t be able to provide NDIS services at current prices 9% 10% 81%
We are confident that the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework supports the quality of services/outcomes 47% 26% 28%
The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is working well with providers 53% 30% 17%
The systems and processes in the NDIS are working well 81% 16%
There is sufficient advocacy for the people we support 72% 16% 12%
Helping people understand and navigate the scheme is taking us away from service provision 7% 13% 79%
There are too many unnecessary rules and regulations my organisation has to follow 14% 26% 60%
Our staff are exhausted by ongoing changes in the NDIS 6% 14% 80%
My leadership team spends too much time on dealing with changes to the NDIS 6% 10% 84%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Disagree or strongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree or strongly agree
Figure 4
NDIS policy reforms are heading in the right direction; disagree or strongly disagree
100%
80%
60% 55% 49% 47% 40% 27% 27% 26% 26% 21% 20% 19% 20%
0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Figure 5
The NDIA is working well with providers; disagree or strongly disagree
100%
84% 82%
80% 67% 64% 64% 62% 61% 60% 57% 56% 54%
40%
20%
0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Agreement that “The NDIS policy environment is uncertain” has remained consistently high over the past decade, climbing to 91 per cent in 2023 and climbed further to 80 per cent in 2024 and 81 per cent in 2025, reflecting a substantial escalation in financial pressure in the sector.
Figure 6 The NDIS policy environment is uncertain; agree or strongly agree
100% 91% 92% 80% 81% 79% 81%80% 75% 75% 75% 69%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Figure 7 We are worried we won’t be able to provide NDIS services at current prices; agree and strongly agree
100%
80% 81%80%
67% 68% 69%
60% 58% 57% 58% 59% 52%
40%
20%
0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Page 12
In relation to the operating environment and “Many people with disability and their\nrecommendations from the Independent families struggle to navigate the complexity\nof the NDS.”\nVIC small not-for-profit\n“Reduced administrative burden onrespondents were asked which policy\ndelivered providers.“reforms should be prioritised and why these\nservice providers. Pricing reforms\nimprovementof service providers. Pricing reforms\nrecognising registered providers and the risk Organisations continue to focus on\nimproving productivity. Reflecting uncertainty “Reforms should prioritise strengthening\ngeneral in the sector, fewer organisations are actively provider registration to ensure high-quality,\nsafe, and accountable service delivery.”\n\n VIC medium not-for-profit\n“Independent pricing — the under-pricing \non services is a risk to providers and \nto participants.” \n“Reforming NDIS pricing to better reflect\n three years. This declined from 45 per cent in\n2024, 58 per cent in 2023 and 64 per cent in VIC medium not-for-profit\nthe true cost of service delivery, particularly\nfor high-intensity supports.” \nThree quarters of respondents were worried about their ability to adjust to changes in the policy environment, up slightly from 2024. QLD medium not-for-profit\nAround 70 per cent reported their board and\nleadership team found it difficult to develop\nstrategy and set direction in the current\npolicy and operating environment, again a\nsmall increase from the previous year.\nThirty-five per cent of respondents plan tooverly complex systems and to reduce\nadiministrative burdens on NDS service\nproviders:\n “I think they are all important. Protection\nincrease from 27 per cent in 2024. On\na slightly more positive note, a smaller proportion of organisations reported that they was considering leaving the disability sector entirely (16 per cent in 2025 compared with QLD small for-profit\n21 per cent in 2024, but up from only nine\per cent in 2023 and 2022).
Figure 8 Organisational strategy
Our Board and Leadership Team find it difficult to develop strategy and set direction 16% 15% 70% in the current policy/operating environment
We are worried about our ability to adjust to changes resulting from changes in the 11% 14% 75% policy environment
We have a clear vision of where we will be 36% 23% 41% in 3 years from now
We are actively growing our organisation 25% 30% 45%
We will stay in the disability sector but are 44% 21% 35% not focused on growth
We are considering getting out of the 62% 22% 16%
disability sector
We are actively working on improving our 93% productivity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Disagree or strongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree or strongly agree
Thirty-five per cent of respondents plan to stay in the disability sector but not focus on growing their organisation
Figure 9 We are considering getting out of the disability sector
2% 2% 1%100%
6% 6% 9% 9%
11% 16%
16% 21% 10% 14% 11%
80% 12% 19% 13% 22% 22%
60%
83%40% 80% 81%
75% 72% 69%
62%
57%
20%
0% 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Disagree or strongly disagree Agree or strongly agree
Neither agree nor disagree Don't know
Of the 123 organisations who reported Among open-text responses about why that they were “actively growing [their] organisations had chosen not to actively growing organisation”, 90 per cent reported that they grow their organisation, respondents tended to increase their client base. Other common strategies included to indicate that it was not financially viable or increasing the range of services offered (50 “NDIS services cost us money so cannot per cent) and increasing their workforce. be grown.” Thirty-seven per cent reported “opening SA large not-for-profitmore service locations” and 35 per cent reported broadening operations to include “At present, we do not see a viable sectors beyond disability. These proportions economy of scale within the NDIS sector, are relatively consistent with proportions and increasing service delivery in this area reported in 2024. would likely result in heightened financial exposure.’ ACT large not-for-profit
Page 15
“The environment is too unstable. The risk Smaller numbers were focusing on other is too high.” areas: 22 per cent were working on assistance VIC small for-profit with innovation, including using research evidence to develop quality services, 18 per cent were focusing on having a qualified workforce, eight per cent were working on disability inclusion practices within their organisation, and four per cent were developing an emergency management plan.
“We are deeply concerned about
profitability and sustainability due to
unclear policy landscape.”
n NSW small not-for-profit
systemic challenges—such as unclear NDIS processes and workforce shortages make strategic expansion risky and unsustainable at this time.“ several respondents reported on their need
WA small for-profit for technological improvements, efficient and
sustainable use of resources, and marketing
efforts:
“Incorporating AI.”
“We don’t want to grow too much anyway SA large not-for-profit as want to maintain culture and quality.” WA small not-for-profit “Sustainable and client focused service models.”
“Our current size seems to be in the right WA not-for-profit level to be able to provide service and have a small surplus.” “Marketing.” SA medium not-for-profit QLD small not-for-profit
In response to questions about improving business capability, 60 per cent of Access to data and research organisations reported working on market Respondents indicated that they continuedresearch, strategies and planning, up to lack access to the sufficient, timely, andsignificantly from 28 per cent in 2024. Nearly dependent on external funding. half (49 per cent) were focusing on costing and pricing, while 44 per cent were working on customer engagement, a significant rise from 23 per cent last year. Encouragingly, there was a five per cent2 decrease in organisations who disagreed thatimproving business capability areas that organisations need to improve most in the next 12 months, improve data reporting and use. Just under NDIS pricing and regulations are barriers toa quarter (23 per cent) were improving recordsmanagement, a significant increase from 12 per cent last year, while 26 per cent weretaking action to address these issues. focusing on developing and implementing strategic plans and business planning. Across the five-year period, disagreement has consistently remainedhigh, peaking at 89 per cent in 2024 beforedropping slightly to 84 per cent this year.
16
Figure 10 Taken together, NDIS pricing and regulation are conducive to providing innovative services that respond to participant needs
100% 6% 5% 8% 12% 11% 6% 10% 15% 80% 15% 16%
60%
89% 84%40% 77% 74% 72%
20%
0% 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Disagree or strongly disagree Agree or strongly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
NDIS services
The most common NDIS services provided (53 per cent). Notably, there has been a by respondents included assistance with significant decline in provision of specialist daily personal activities (70 per cent), support coordination, dropping from 52 per participation in community, social and cent in 2024 to 26 per cent in 2025. More civic activities (69 per cent), development information on services that were provided of daily living and life skills (55 per cent), can be found in Figure 11 below. and group and centre-based activities
Figure 11 NDIS services provided
- Assistance with daily personal activities 70%
- Participation in community, social and civic activities 69%
- Development of daily living and life skills 55%
- Group and centre based activities 53%
- Assistance with daily life tasks in a group or shared living 51% arrangement
- Assistance with travel/transport arrangements 51%
- High intensity daily personal activities 44%
- Assistance in coordinating or managing life stages, 40% transitions and supports
- Household tasks 32%
- Accommodation/tenancy assistance 27%
- Specialist support coordination 26%
- Innovative community participation 25%
- Therapeutic supports 23%
- Specialist disability accommodation 20%
- Specialist positive behaviour support 19%
- Assistance to access and maintain employment or higher 17% education
- Early intervention supports for early childhood 15%
- Specialised supported employment 14%
- Management of funding for supports in participant plans 14%
- Community nursing care 8%
- Assistive products for personal care and safety 6%
- Communication and information equipment 5%
- Assistive products for household tasks 5%
- Exercise physiology and personal wellbeing activities 5%
- Home modifications 4%
- Personal mobility equipment 3%
- Assistive equipment for recreation 3%
- Vehicle modifications 2%
- Vision equipment 1%
- Customised prosthetics 1%
Page 18
In terms of accommodation assistance, 25 providers (56 more, 31 less), and daily 134 respondents provided responses. Of these, 90 per cent provided Supported Independent Living (SIL) supports and 63 per cent provided short-term accommodation supports. Only a smaller proportion of respondents (27 per cent) provided medium-term accommodation supports or individualised living options.
This year we examined net changes in service provision. A net change in service provision refers to the difference between The number of providers who reported “We provided more” and those who reported “We provided less” for each service. A positive negative value indicates the opposite.
In 2025, the largest positive net change in hours of service delivery was seen in participation in community, social and civic activities, with 85 providers increasing hours and 38 decreasing, resulting in a net increase of 47 providers. Group and centre-based activities followed, with a net increase of activities, daily personal activities, development often saw negative net individualised living options. Conversely, some services saw negative net- changes. For example, community nursing care had a net reduction of three providers four more, seven less), and assistive products for household tasks recorded a reduction of two (two more, four less). Respondents anticipated increasing the delivery of several services next year, with planned net growth across multiple hours than decreased, while a negative value indicates the opposite. According to the data (subtracting respondents who plan to stop or reduce provision of a particular service from those who plan to start), we anticipate seeing larger ineases in the provision of participation in community, social and civic activities, daily personal activities, development of daily living and life skills, group and ter based activities, and assistance
Page 19
With daily life tasks in a group or shared “Demand and alignment with people’s giving arrangement. Smaller but still notable goals.” increases are expected in high intensity daily VIC large not-for-profit personal activities, innovative community “We believe there is high demand and itparticipation, assistance with travel/transport complements our business model.“arrangements, assistance in coordinating or managing life stages, transitions and NSW large not-for-profit supports and assistance to access and maintain employment or higher education. Inability to provide services Only 37 respondents (13 per cent) plan to Seventy-seven per cent of respondentsprovide a new NDIS funded service, with no indicated that they received requests forclear standout. The most commonly reported services that they could not provide, downnew service is community nursing care, with slightly from 81 per cent the previous year.six organisations planning to begin providing Reasons for not being able to providethese services. services included the client’s plan not We asked respondents to share the main covering the requested service (73 per cent), reasons their organisation would be adding not having capacity (57 per cent), not offering these services (noted above). Respondents the services (47 per cent), client needs being frequently reported about a need to align too complex (41 per cent), client difficulty with clients’ needs and goals along with accessing a service due to distance and business plans and objectives: transportation (27 per cent), and the client living too far away for home-based services (due to travel time) (25 per cent).
Figure 12 Over the last 12 months, we have received requests for disability services that we have not been able to provide
100% 82% 81%80% 79% 80% 76% 77% 77% 69% 60%
40%
20%
0% 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
20
Of those organisations who reported capacity issues, key responses included not having enough staff (81 per cent), not having appropriately qualified staff (41 per cent), lacking access to financial capital (to improve or expand services) (43 per cent), and lacking organisational capacity (37 per cent).
Respondents were asked to provide reasons for occasions where they had turned away clients. Respondents popularly reported experiencing inadequate and inflexible NDIS funding. This was followed by client needs not matching with the services offered and staff shortages:
“Inadequate and inflexible NDIS funding - many participant plans do not reflect the true cost of care.” NSW medium not-for-profit
“Funding exhausted by other provider, well before plan end-date.” VIC large not-for-profit
“Client required nursing staff and medication.” SA medium not-for-profit
“Participants wanted a specific age/gender and we did not have the staffing available at that time to meet this need.” VIC medium for-profit
“This is unfunded time for providers.” QLD small for-profit SA small for-profit
We also asked about the barriers that impacted their ability to collaborate with other organisations. Respondents frequently reported competition among providers funding gaps and time and resources as barriers to collaboration: “Customer poaching is a significant issue that restricts a business willingness to collaborate.”
We asked respondents to provide any examples where they had collaborated with other providers to solve service access problems for individual clients. Many respondents shared collaboration examples where they did not have the capacity to meet client needs and collaborating to support clients with complex needs. Providers also report collaborating to share resources and information:
“We regularly refer to other providers where we cannot meet a person’s needs/wants.” NSW medium not-for-profit
“We have worked with others to share ideas and knowledge about complex participants.” tas medium for-profit
“I’ve collaborated with other providers by sharing documentation, resources, and updates to ensure consistent and coordinated support for participants.” nsw large not-for-profit
“Barriers to collaboration with other organisations often relate to funding constraints.” vic very small staff shortages:
vic medium for-profit
“Good relationships with customer, family, and support coordinator.” wA large not-for-profit
Shared commitment to participant wellbeing.
Unfunded services
This year we asked providers to indicate whether they had provided unfunded services to their clients. Of the 199 organisations who responded, 77 per cent indicated that they had provided unfunded services. One hundred and forty-nine organisations provided an estimate of the cost of unfunded services. These estimates ranged from $560 to $10,000,000. In total, organisations estimated that they spent a total of $69,179,791 on unfunded services, an average of over $460,000 per organisation.
“Leadership. In our local area, CEOs are coming together to identify opportunities for collaboration.” QLD very small
Several respondents raised leadership and events as facilitators to collaboration:
e “Networking events are crucial where people can share problems and solutions.” VIC medium not-for-profit SA large not-for-profit
Figure 13 Number of organisations reporting amount of expenditure related to unfunded services
| Less than $2,000 | 3% | |$2,000 to less than $10,000 | 11% | |$10,000 to less than $25,000 | 21% | |$25,000 to less than $50,000 | 15% | |$50,000 to less than $100,000 | 18% | |$100,000 to less than $500,000 | 52% | |$500,000 to less than $1M | 12% | |$1M to less than $4M | 12% | |$4M to less than $8M | 3% | |More than $8M | 2% |
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
22
Respondents who provided unfunded services to their clients over the last 12 months were asked about the nature of their unfunded services.
The nature of unfunded services provided by respondents
- Continuing supports for clients with The many faces of unfunded plans unfunded support
- Coordinating supports for participants Providers continue to deliver essential supports that fall outside funded plans, ensuring participants don’t lose vital assistance. These unfunded efforts range from crisis response and travel costs to helping participants navigate complex systems and stay connected to their communities.
- Underfunded SIL supports that fall outside funded
- Travel costs plans, ensuring participants don’t lose vital assistance. These unfunded
- Supporting participants to navigate the NDIS and other systems travel costs to helping participants navigate complex systems and stay• Connection to community activities connected to their communities.
- Responding to crisis and emergency
“Continuity of supports for participants “Travel time, vehicle costs.” who had inadequate funding for their VIC small for-profit support needs.” “System navigation, educating participants TAS medium for-profit and families about how the NDIS works.” “Participants plans did not align with QLD very small (Organisation structure their needs, so we continued to provide not stated) supports once plans had been fully “Emergency responses.“ utilised.” VIC small not-for-profit NT medium not-for-profit “Social connection and inclusion “Predominantly in support coordination.” activities.” VIC large not-for-profit QLD medium not-for-profit “SIL services when plans were under funded or exhausted.” NSW large not-for-profit
Page 23
Respondents were asked why these services needed to be provided without funding.
Reasons for providing unfunded supports
“ These services are unfunded
- Funding gaps in participant plans
- NDIS administrative and regulatory issues
- NDIS planning gaps and errors
- NDIS pricing framework issues VIC small for-profit “ Poor NDIS pricing design that does not consider the cost of quality services that are safe. ” WA small for-profit Vic large not-for-profit “ NDIS is too slow with responding to urgent need. ” NSW medium not-for-profit
“ Planning errors and missing indexation. ” WA large for-profit
Financial results and predictions
After relative stability up to 2019 with approximately half of organisations reporting a profit or surplus, the sector remains troublesome. For the second year in a row, the proportion of organisations reporting a loss or deficit was higher than those reporting a profit or surplus.
In the 2024–25 financial year, 48 per cent of organisations reported a loss or deficit (down from 50 per cent in 2023–2024). Those breaking even rose from 13 per cent to 15 per cent. Meanwhile, 35 per cent of organisations reported a profit or surplus in 2024–25, the same proportion as the previous year.
Figure 14 Profits and loss over time
| Year | We broke even or were close to break-even | We made a profit/surplus | We made a loss/deficit | Don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | ||||
| 2017 | ||||
| 2018 | ||||
| 2019 | ||||
| 2020 | ||||
| 2021 | ||||
| 2022 | ||||
| 2023 | ||||
| 2024 | ||||
| 2025 |
Average Profit or Loss Over Time
Respondents reported on the size of profit (surplus) or loss (deficit) as a percentage of overall revenue. This was used to estimate the overall “average profit or loss” for organisations across the sector.
When considering these figures, it should be noted that the method used for estimating profit or loss was conservative, so profits will be consistently overestimated, and losses will be consistently underestimated. This means that the average “profits” for 2020 to 2024 will overstate the average profit and the loss for 2025 will understate the loss.
As can be seen there has been a steady decline in terms of financial performance over time, with the average result for 2025 dropping into a loss for the first time.
Figure 15 Average profit or loss for organisations over time
$2000000
$1500000
$1000000
$500000
$0
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
$−500000
When this is combined with the average estimate of over $460,000 of unfunded services delivered by each organisation, it highlights that unfunded services may be the direct driver of losses in the sector. If unfunded service delivery was actually funded, then each organisation would return a surplus of approximately $160,000.
Organisations are more hopeful for 2025–26: only 38 per cent anticipate a loss in 2025–26 down from an actual 48 per cent in 2024–25. However, this optimism is not flowing into profit expectations. Instead, many expect to break even — 31 per cent anticipate breaking even in 2025–26 versus the 15 per cent who actually broke even in 2024–25. Profit expectations have softened: 26 per cent expect a surplus in 2025–26 compared with an actual 35 per cent in 2024–25.
Figure 16 Predictions of profit and loss over time
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Break-even or be close to break-even Make a profit/surplus
Make a Loss/deficit Don't know
In terms of differences between different There were no significant differences organisation types and geographic between organisations operating in different locations, there were large differences in states and territories or in relation to those financial performance between for-profit offering services in metropolitan, rural or and not-for-profit organisations and those remote areas. established before and after the introduction In narrative responses about organisationof the NDIS. Not-for-profit organisations financial results such as profit or loss (surplusand those established before 2014 were classified by turnover: significantly more likely to report a loss for respondents frequently raised concerns2024–2025 and predict a loss for 2025–2026. about unsustainable financial losses and aAdditionally, larger organisations were also challenging financial environment:more likely to report a loss for 2024–2025 and predict a loss for 2025–2026. This was “Overheads are eating through profits and particularly true for organisations with a trying to remain registered and compliant is turnover of greater than $20 million. a full-time job in itself.” TAS very small (sole trader)
“It is getter harder and harder to provide “Increasing charges for insurance and services in this space because of auditing affect operating costs.” VIC very small for-profit QLD very small not-for-profit
“Pay increases and operating costs increasing year on year with no change to NDIS therapy rate.” NSW small not-for-profit VIC large not-for-profit
cannot impact quality.“ Respondents often reported concerns about WA large not-for-profittheir longer-term viability, profit attained from non-NDIS sources, experiencing cost “Our organisation operates with a lean increases, and moving to a lean financial financial model.” structure to survive: QLD medium not-for-profit “The organisation has made the decision that if we are not, at the very least, A small minority of respondents reported achieving break even by the end of being in a sound financial position: June 2027, we will stop delivering NDIS “We invest a lot of energy and finance services.” into efficiencies to ensure we maintain a SA medium not-for-profit positive balance.“ “It is important for us to build non-NDIS QLD medium for-profit services to maintain the financial viability of “The data over the last two years suggests our organisation.” we are trending back towards profitability.“ QLD large not-for-profit SA small not-for-profit
The state of quality
and safeguarding
The Quality and Safeguarding Attitudes towards NDIS practice standards
framework
Opinions of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework have declined this year compared with 2024, although none of the changes are statistically significant. The largest decrease was related to opinions of the NDIS Code of Conduct. Last year 74 per cent of respondents believed it led to good outcomes, while this year that dropped to 69 per cent. A similar decrease was seen for the NDIS induction modules, down seven per cent from 68 per cent to 61 per cent.
Auditing also softened, falling three per cent to 59 per cent of respondents agreeing it leads to good outcomes for participants.
Complaints management and disputes resolution dropped by six per cent to 51 per cent, and incident management and reportable incidents fell by five per cent to 56 per cent. There was no change in opinions of behaviour support requirements (to reduce and eliminate restrictive practices), with 52 per cent still agreeing that they led to positive outcomes for participants.
Page 29
The NDIS worker orientation module (Quality, Safety and You) declined modestly from 67 per cent to 63 per cent, while full worker screening requirements, although still high, dropped from 81 per cent to 78 per cent. Notably, both NDIS Commission practice guidelines and registered NDIS provider notice of changes and events improved this year. The practice guides rose from 45 per cent to 50 per cent and notice of changes and events increased from 30 per cent to 38 per cent, though both remain relatively low in perceived positive outcomes.
Figure 17 Quality and Safeguarding Framework
|NDIS Commission Practice Guides |17 |33 |50| |Registered NDIS provider notice of changes | |and events |26 |36 |38| |Behavior support requirements, to reduce |and eliminate restrictive practices |17 |30 |52| |Incident Management and Reportable |Incidents |20 |25 |56| |Complaints management and dispute |resolution in relation to our services |21 |28 |51| |NDIS Practice Standards Auditing |18 |23 |59| |Full Worker Screening requirements |7 |15 |78| |New Worker - NDIS Induction Modules |10 |30 |61| |NDIS Code of Conduct |10 |21 |69| |NDIS Worker Orientation Module (Quality, Safety and You) |12 |24 |63|
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Disagree or strongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree or strongly agree
30
Across open comments concerning the Several respondents indicated that the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, framework is undermined by current pricing respondents popularly described the structures: framework and its reporting requirements as “Additional compliance burden withoutonerous, unclear and ineffective: adequate pricing increase does not lead to better outcomes for participants.” “The current compliance and audit “We are committed to meeting our recognising the size, risk profile, and processes are overly complex, resource- operating context of providers.” intensive, and often lack nuance in QLD medium not-for-profit “We are committed to meeting our recognising the size, risk profile, and obligations but getting the same price as operating context of providers.” self managers and unregistered providers QLD medium not-for-profit HURTS as they are not required to make “The amount of time spent by the team the investments that we do and that is and senior leadership on restrictive leading to unsustainable losses.” practices and reportable incidents is WA large not-for-profit significant.“ “As a sole trader registered with the NSW large not-for-profit scheme to provide support coordination, it’s difficult to find and save funds for the Many respondents expressed their concerns audits, this is made much more difficult about the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding due to the seven-year price freeze.” Framework only applying to registered WA very smallproviders:
“Unregistered providers are not held to the In contrast, several respondents same rigorous standards yet continue to described the framework in terms of being deliver services funded by the NDIS. “ comprehensive, effective and important: QLD small for-profit “The NDIS Quality and Safeguarding “While the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework provides essential guidance to Framework provides a solid foundation ensure services are safe, person-centred, for accountability and continuous and uphold the rights and dignity of people improvement among registered with disability.” providers, it is increasingly evident that VIC small not-for-profit the same regulatory expectations are “I believe that the upcoming changes not consistently applied to unregistered regarding mandatory registration and providers.” complaints management are heading in the NSW large not-for-profit right direction.“ NSW medium not-for-profit
Spotlight on quality
This year we asked respondents for further “Not about you without you - we are\nstrong proponents of choice, control and\ntransparency in all our services.”\nWA medium not-for-profit\nfacilitate quality service delivery, and what\nbarriers they experience in providing quality\nservice delivery.
Defining quality service delivery
We asked respondents how their organisation defines quality provision of services to clients.
“By compliance with legislative andbar safeguarding standards.”\nnsw large not-for-profit\nprovision of services to clients\n“Well-trained staff who can respond to\nclients’ needs…”
sa large not-for-profit\nCollaboration with clients, guardians and\nstakeholders a focus.“How organisations define quality\npossession of services to clients\n”Based on continual improvement register\nand feedback.“\nvic small not-for-profit\nQuality service provision means delivering\nperson-centred, responsive, and ethical\nsupport that empowers people with\ndisability to live with dignity, autonomy, and\ninclusion.”
wa small for-profit
Measuring quality service delivery
Facilitating quality service delivery
We asked respondents how their organisation measures quality provision of services to clients.
What organisations do to facilitate the delivery of quality services
- Formal feedback channels (for example, surveys and interviews)
- Informal channels (for example, check ins)
- Invest in staff training and education
- Regular monitoring of service quality
- Recognise the importance of communication and collaboration
- Conduct person-centred planning
- Follow standards, guidelines and values
- Foster a culture of compassion, improvement and excellence “Surveys, customer engagement staff who interview customers and families.”
- recognise the importance of strong and visible leadership
- invest in technology “Client check-ins, regular worker”
- value lived experience of disability “we invest in ongoing staff training.” “complaints and incidents and the quality” QLD very small not-for-profit management system.“ VIC large not-for-profit “we systematically monitor service quality through feedback, audits, and incident review, and use this information for continuous improvement.” “always strive to provide a great service, listening to our participants.” NSW very small not-for-profit “place person centred and high-quality services at the heart of everything we do.” ACT large not-for-profit “facilitates the delivery of quality services through a strategic, values-driven framework that aligns with the NDIS Practice Standards.” WA medium not-for-profit
Fostering a culture of excellence throughout our teams.
We asked respondents about barriers that limit their ability to deliver quality services.
ACT large not-for-profit
“Site visits by Board and management regularly.”
NSW large not-for-profit
Barriers experienced by organisations to the delivery of quality services
- Funding and pricing constraints
- A general lack of resource availability
- Workforce shortages
- System and policy related challenges
- Administrative burdens
- Travel and distance related
“The NDIS pricing is inadequate - we cross subsidise all the Q and S work to ensure we operate above the NDIS standards.”
WA large not-for-profit
“Funding limitations can also restrict access to resources.”
VIC very small not-for-profit
“Our ability to deliver high-quality services is limited by workforce shortages.”
QLD medium not-for-profit
“Challenges in navigating the NDIS system.”
TAS medium for-profit
“Administrative and compliance burden - significant time and resources are required to meet regulatory, reporting, and audit requirements which can divert focus from frontline care.”
QLD small for-profit
“Recent NDIS changes in relation to travel has significantly impacted our ability to provide services in places that children live, learn and play.”
NSW small not-for-profit
Registration
“These changes will significantly increase compliance workload.” Two hundred and fifty registered providers QLD medium not-for-profit answered questions about registration. This year, eight per cent of respondents who are registered providers are considering dropping their registration with the NDIS Commission, a decrease from 19 per cent last year, which is a statistically significant change. Of the 18 respondents who are not registered providers, 13 are considering becoming registered with the NDIS Commission and three are not, while two are unsure.
VIC very small not-for-profit
Figure 18 Is your organisation considering dropping their registration with the NDIS Commission? “Changes to the regulatory environment,such as mandatory registration and new practice standards,will inevitably raise the bar for compliance.“2025 8% 82% 10% VIC large not-for-profit
Many respondents reported no expected impacts on their organisations: “It will not impact us,but it will impact the industry that we work in.” QLD large not-for-profit
“No change we are already registered.“2023 18% 70% 12% WA large not-for-profit
Several respondents reported uncertaintyabout the impacts on their organisations:
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
“Impact will depend on what the specific Yes No Don’t know
changes are.”
NSW large not-for-profit
Regulation
“Unknown at this stage.”
Respondents were asked how changes to the regulatory environment will affect theirorganisation. In response to this question,
many respondents described the changes as burdensome and costly:
“Implementation of any new standards will take time, effort and cost to implement. Allof which we are currently in short supply of.” NSW large not-for-profit
The State Of The Workforce
Recruitment
Recruitment continues to be difficult for organisations. The most difficult roles to recruit for included speech therapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, dietitians, and behaviour support practitioners. In comparison to results from last year, difficulties associated with recruiting occupational therapists eased significantly, but difficulties recruiting dietitians increased. The roles easiest to recruit for included plan managers, marketing and business development, information technology roles, and finance and accounting roles. Trends in recruitment are presented in the four figures on the following page.
Figure 19a Trends in recruitment over time: allied health professionals
54%
52%
Allied health assistant 57% 67%
79%
55%
Dietitian 68% 83%
72%
58%
68%
74%
Physiotherapist 78% 86%
80%
76%
84%
83%
Psychologist 91% 94%
89%
87%
75%
85%
Behaviour support practitioner 88%
92%
88%
Speech therapist 86% 98%
93%
83%
84%
91%
Occupational therapist 92% 97%
92%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Figure 19b Trends in recruitment over time: front-line workforce
58%
58%
Disability support worker 78% 83%
70%
60%
54%
60%
Early childhood - educator 58% 70%
60%
63%
Managers/supervisors of 73%
disability support worker 77%
68%
56%
61%
69%
Volunteers 69% 71%
57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Figure 19c Trends in recruitment over time: intermediaries and planners
33%
25%
Plan manager 34% 41%
53%
50%
LAC/Planner 60% 50%
48%
44%
47%
54%
Support coordinator 60% 64%
65%
53%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Figure 19d Trends in recruitment over time: administration and back office
33%
34% Information technology 48% 55%
40%
28%
36%
35% Marketing/business 53%
development 53%
44%
34%
38%
36% Finance/accounting 50% 57%
38%
25%
42%
48% HR/workforce development 55% 63%
45%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Narrative responses about the key barriers “We are increasingly finding it harder to faced in recruiting staff, along with the recruit for management and leadership strategies used to facilitate recruitment are positions. These roles require a unique combination of regulatory knowledge, people leadership, financial and operational skills, and sector expertise.”\n• A lack of qualified or suitable staff VIC large not-for-profit
- Competition from other sectors “Regional staff recruitment is more difficult.”• Preference for casual contracts SA large not-for-profit
- NDIS pricing limits “Cost of accommodation in regions …• Do not want shift work out of range for support workers and
- Administrative and compliance burdens junior allied health staff to move to these
- Located in regional area vacancies.“\n• Pay expectations WA large not-for-profit• Perceptions of safety risks “It is almost impossible to recruit support workers - and especially experienced• Scarcity of accommodation support workers.”\n• Do not want stress or high workload QLD medium not-for-profit
Page 39
“Salaries too low and competing with\n government (in the ACT).”
ACT large not-for-profit
- Good marketing materials
“Therapists earn more money if they go out\n on their own or work for bigger companies\n with better perks so we can’t compete.” “Opportunities for development and career\n pathways.” QLD small not-for-profit
SA large not-for-profit
“NDIS pricing structures limit what we can\n offer in salaries.” “Our most successful recruitment\n strategies are recruiting by word of mouth.” VIC large not-for-profit
NT medium not-for-profit
“Attracting staff who are available to work\n rostered shifts spread over 24 hours per day,\n 365 days per year.” “Offering part-time and flexible work\n arrangements has enabled us to attract a\n more diverse workforce.” TAS medium not-for-profit
VIC small not-for-profit
“Salary expectations are generally much\n higher than the ability to pay.” “Building our HR team and HR systems.” TAS medium not-for-profit VIC medium not-for-profit
“Leaving the industry entirely due to burnout.” “An offer of reasonable remuneration for\n the role they have.” QLD small for-profit
QLD very small for-profit Open text responses to the key supports “Our strong organisational culture.” and enablers that services experienced in VIC small not-for-profitrecruiting staff are summarised in the table below: “Relationships with local RTOs, TAFEs, and universities provide access to nursing Facilitators to recruitment and allied health students seeking industry experience.
- Reputation of organisation QLD small for-profit
- Training and professional development “We get the best results where we can tap opportunities into personal networks of employees.”
- Word of mouth SA medium not-for-profit
- Flexible work arrangements
- Effective hiring processes
- Offering fair pay
- Organisational culture and values
- Relationships with universities and TAFE
- Other financial incentives (eg, salary sacrificing)
Retention
In terms of staff retention, LAC/planners, Plan managers, finance and accounting staff, dietitians, speech therapists, early childhood educators, behaviour support practitioners, and physiotherapists were difficult to retain.
Figure 20a Trends in retention over time: allied health professionals
36%
33%
Allied health assistant 53% 47%
67%
39%
Dietitian 69% 48%
55%
26%
61%
54%
Physiotherapist 65% 52%
55%
39%
54%
57%
Psychologist 81% 64%
63%
48%
61%
52%
Behaviour support practitioner 65%
63%
64%
Speech therapist 72% 66%
61%
49%
55%
63%
Occupational therapist 69% 60%
65%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Figure 20b Trends in retention over time: front-line workforce
38%
47%
Disability support worker 53% 56%
44%
40%
62%
51%
Early childhood - educator 61% 71%
38%
40%
Managers/supervisors of 39%
disability support worker 47%
31%
25%
45%
52%
Volunteers 55% 55%
36%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Figure 20c Trends in retention over time: intermediaries and planners
23%
15%
Plan manager 24% 38%
75%
47%
LAC/Planner 60% 39%
39%
36%
32%
39%
Support coordinator 48% 42%
32%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Figure 20d Trends in retention over time: administration and back office
28%
19%
Information technology 28% 41%
22%
13%
21%
23%
Marketing/business 32%
development 36%
19%
13%
24%
20%
Finance/accounting 25% 36%
12%
12%
27%
32%
HR/workforce Development 36% 48%
26%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020
Open text responses about the key • Staff relocating to a new area challenges that organisations face in
-
Staff relocating to a new arearetaining staff are summarised below:
-
Cost of living in a capital city Barriers to retention • Costs of being registered
-
High job demands and staff burnout
-
Competition and poaching staff “The emotional toll of high-intensity or crisis-driven work.”
-
Low pay rate QLD medium not-for-profit
-
Inconsistent work hours “Ability to maintain staff due to poaching
-
Lack of career pathway by other organisations.” opportunities elsewhere NSW large not-for-profit
-
Staff training and development demands “Competition from other sectors.”
-
Staff safety issues WA very small not-for-profit
“Constantly changing hours and rosters for “Our strong organisational culture and support workers leads to dissatisfaction.” values.“ QLD large not-for-profit VIC large not-for-profit
“They seek the wages they deserve but we “Investment in training and development.”
cannot afford to provide this due to [price] VIC small not-for-profit
limitations enforced by the NDIS.“
“Offering flexible work arrangements VIC small for-profit
supports work-life balance.”
“No real career structure for support QLD very small for-profit
workers.”
“The provision of a positive and supportive WA large not-for-profit
work environment.”
“Sometimes it’s the fit or it wasn’t what SA medium not-for-profit
people expected.”
“Competitive pay rate.” SA large not-for-profit
NSW small not-for-profit
“We have had staff leave once they were
“Staff surveys, regular communication.” able to access all our participant details
and resources to transfer to their own NDIS TAS medium not-for-profit
company.“
“Ensure we check in regularly, hold regular
team meetings.”
NT medium not-for-profit
“Fatigue … training.” VIC large not-for-profit
VIC medium not-for-profit “Regular acknowledgement of individual
and team achievements, both formally and
informally.”
QLD small for-profit
“Future stability of hours.”
QLD small not-for-profit
“Great management helps enormously.”
TAS medium not-for-profit
• Flexible work arrangements
Open-text responses to the key supports and informally. enablers that services experience in retaining QLD small for-profit staff are summarised below: “Future stability of hours.” Facilitators of retention QLD small not-for-profit
-
Culture, values and reputation of an “Great management helps enormously.” organisation TAS medium not-for-profit
-
Training and development • Flexible work arrangements
-
Support and staff wellbeing programs
-
Competitive pay
-
Regular staff engagement
-
Rewards and recognition
-
Consistent work availability
-
Work-life balance
-
Good supervision and communication
-
Strong leadership
The state of disability employment
Disability Employment Services (DES)
47 per cent (seven of 15) agreed it delivers quality employment outcomes, while 27 per cent (four of 15) were neutral and another 27 per cent (four of 15) disagreed.
Fifteen respondents answered questions about Disability Employment Services (DES), which was a similar number to last year. Last year, policy reforms were on the horizon; however, this year they were not yet implemented. Therefore, our questions were slightly different this year, which means we cannot compare this year’s data to that of last year. However, we were able to ask questions about respondent thoughts on the current DES model versus the proposed new DES model.
On policy direction, almost half (47 per cent, seven of 15) agreed that reforms are heading in the right direction, one-third disagreed (33 per cent, five of 15), and one-fifth (20 per cent, three of 15) were neutral. Views on the effectiveness of the current DES were similar: 47 per cent (seven of 15) agreed, 27 per cent (four of 15) were neutral, and 27 per cent (four of 15) disagreed.
Thoughts on financial sustainability were mixed. For the current DES, responses were split evenly between agree (40 per cent, six of 15) and disagree (40 per cent, six of 15) that it is financially sustainable for their organisation. For the proposed model, most respondents reserved judgement: 60 per cent (nine of 15) were neutral, 27 per cent (four of 15) agreed, and 13 per cent (two of 15) disagreed.
On administrative burden, very few expected relief: only seven per cent (one of 15) believed the proposed DES will reduce current administrative load, while 47 per cent (seven of 15) disagreed and 47 per cent (seven of 15) were neutral.
Figure 21 Opinions of the existing and new Disability Employment Services model
Policy reforms for the new DES, due to commence in 2025, are heading in the right direction
The current DES program is effective in delivering quality employment outcomes for people with disability
The current DES model is financially sustainable for my organisation
The proposed new DES model will be financially sustainable for my organisation
The proposed new DES program is likely to reduce current DES administrative burden on my organisation
The proposed new DES program will lead to improve quality and participant experience
The current DES model allows providers to deliver equitable job support for all people with disability who use these services
The proposed new DES model will allow providers to deliver equitable job support for all people with disability who use these services
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Disagree or strongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree or strongly agree
We asked respondents for their comments on “Service fees will no longer be paid the operating environment for DES providers. in advance, which is a huge financial Respondents mentioned that the operating burden put on providers who have to environment is contributing to administrative invest in setting up new infrastructure and and financial burdens for DES providers: employing staff.” “Compliance and evidence collection NSW large not-for-profit take too much time away from supporting “Time limited budgets interrupt continuity participants.” of care and increase admin time.“ NSW large not-for-profit WA large for-profit “The department oversight creates huge duplication and administration, too new to know if it will change the experience of people with disability.” VIC large not-for-profit
Page 46
In relation to the proposed model for DES,
While half of respondents either didn’t know
there is some hope. While seven of 15
(or may have been reserving judgement)
about the proposed new DES funding
structure, four out of 14 felt that it was
an improvement over the current model.
However, this improvement might not be
enough, because only two out of 14 felt
like the right incentives were built into the
new model, with five disagreeing and the
remaining seven reporting “don’t know”.
Figure 22 Respondents’ responses to questions about the proposed model for DES
Do you think the proposed new DES Are the right incentives built into the funding structure is an improvement operation of the proposed new DES to from the current model? assist a range of people with disability into employment? 2 4
7 7 5 3
k ’ Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know
Page 49
Figure 23 Compared to 12 months ago, the current operating environment for supports in employment providers is more certain 100% 6% 8% 4% 13% 12% 11%Supported 20% 18% 13% 8% employment services 21% 80% 17% 22%Forty-five organisations 30% reported on the delivery of 25% 26% Supported Employment 60% Services. Uncertainty remains entrenched: 82 percent did not believe 85% 82% 40% The operating environment 69% 67% 62%is more certain, which was 59% 55% 56% little change from 85 per cent in 2024.
0%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Disagree or strongly disagree Agree or strongly agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Figure 24 The transition to the NDIS has enhanced our capacity to provide employment opportunities
Views on the transition were 100% also flat: 53 per cent did not believe the NDIS transition has 27% 27% 31% 34% 34% 36% 39%enhanced their capacity to provide 80% a broader range of employment opportunities, compared with 50 per cent last year. 20% 60% 23% 19% Pricing pressure has softened 24% 22% 34%but not reversed (see Figure 25): 32% 52 per cent reported they cannot 40% provide the required support under current NDIS pricing, 53% 50%down from 71 per cent in 2024; 45% 20% 39% 42% thi drop was driven mainly by 31% 29% eutrality, not positivity, with more respondents selecting “neither agree nor disagree” (eight per cent 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025in 2024 compared to 23 per cent this year), while agreement rose Disagree or strongly disagree Agree or strongly agree only slightly (21 per cent to 25 per cent).
Figure 25 Our organisation can provide the support required
Four new questions were introduced this year, and the results (shown in Figure 26) point to persistent pessimism. Most providers rejected the idea that the financial outlook for supported employment is improving: 82 per cent disagreed and only seven per cent agreed. The claim that NDIS funding has positively transformed supported employment business operations was also not supported: 53 per cent disagreed and 22 per cent agreed. Views on the SES Award and Supported Wage System assessment process were mixed but largely non-committal: 47 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed that it has been a positive experience for their organisation and participants, with agreement and disagreement evenly split at 27 per cent. Only 16 per cent expressed a positive outlook on the future of supported employment for participants with the highest support needs, while 60 per cent disagreed.
Figure 26 Attitudes towards Supported Employment Services
Compared to 12 months ago, the financial 82% 11% 7% outlook for supported employment is improving
The introduction of NDIS funding has led to a positive transformation of our supported 53% 24% 22% employment business operations
The adoption of the SES Award and SWS assessment process has been a positive 27% 47% 27% extperience for our organisation and participants
I have a positive outlook on the future of support employment, particularly for those 60% 24% 16% participants with the highest support needs
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Disagree or strongly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree or strongly agree
Respondents were asked to comment on “Not sure how the drive to provide the operating environment for providers of minimum wage whilst also considering Supported Employment Services, some that open employment is the desired mentioning the operating environment as outcome will do anything except dismantle contributing to growing financial pressures the provision of Supported Employment and risks of closure. Several respondents Services.” VIC medium not-for-profit
countering the operating environment as contributing to confusion and uncertainty for supported employment services providers: s how that will interact with the DSP is also “As wages rise, the gap between funding unclear - meaning it is almost impossible and actual cost continues to widen, placing to “future proof” the organisation in that significant financial pressure on providers.” respect.”> NSW large not-for-profit NSW small not-for-profit “There is insufficient funding, and flexibility “The supported employment sector for in funding, to allow providers to support the ADE’s is very uncertain as we navigate broader aspects of an employee’s needs as yet further change for better outcomes for they arise.” supported employees.“ VIC large not-for-profit NT medium not-for-profit “Supported employment is at real risk of extinction in the next five-10 years, removing a viable employment option for many people who would otherwise attend day services.” NSW medium not-for-profit
Conclusion
Unfortunately, challenges in the sector Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, continue to grow. Organisations continue responses to our questions about unfunded services were particularly illuminating. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents reported providing unfunded services amounting in total to $69,179,791, or an average of $460,000 per organisation. These numbers are particularly disturbing when taken together with the average financial loss for organisations this year, estimated at $294,058. Clearly, the financial sustainability of the disability sector is increasingly at risk. The state of the disability sector is currently bleak, and though this has been stated for a number of years, the longevity of organisations working to stay afloat in the current operating environment. While approximately one-third of organisations report that they plan to stay in the sector, an increase from last year, they are not focusing on growth. Qualitative results provide further context by noting that organisations are unable to grow due to a lack of resources as well as sector uncertainty and instability. Conversely, this year fewer organisations report that they are considering leaving the sector. However, given current context of organisations closing, such claims of remaining in the sector might be inaccurate due to response bias (for example, organisations planning to close may have not responded to the survey). Despite their struggles, organisations are trying to improve their business capability with an increasing focus on market research, strategy, and planning; customer engagement; information, communications and technology; and improving records management.
Appendix One
Respondent demographics
Useable responses were received from 290 For further clarity on service provision, we organisations.
Also asked a more specific question about where responding organisations provide services. Organisations were able to indicate that they provided services in more than one state or territory. Organisations provided services in New South Wales (37 per cent), Victoria (34 per cent), Queensland (24 per cent), Western Australia (18 per cent), South Australia (16 per cent), Tasmania (11 per cent), Australian Capital Territory (10 per cent), and Northern Territory (six per cent).
For jurisdiction-based analyses, smaller jurisdictions (South Australia, Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Northern Territory) were combined.
Figure A1 Head office location
100
86
80
67
60
49
40 37
23
20 15
7
4 2
0
2%) (5%) (23%) (17%) (1%) (8%) (13%) (30%) response SA NT TAS VIC WA ACT( QLD NSW No
Figure A2 Locations where services are provided
120
108
100100
80
70
60
52
45
40
32 29
20 16
0
(37%) (34%) (24%) (18%) (16%) (11%) (10%) (6%)NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT
Page 53
Figure A3 Provider service areas
There was a wide spread of incomes. Fifteen per cent of organisations had very small incomes of less than 1 million dollars, with 24 per cent classed as small, operating between 1 million and 5 million, 32 per cent were medium (between 5 million and 20 million). Large organisations with incomes over 20 million comprised 29 per cent.
Ninety-seven per cent of respondents provided services under the NDIS. Ninety-one per cent were registered to provide services under the NDIS and were currently providing services, six per cent were not registered but provided services, one per cent were previously registered but have deregistered, two per cent were not registered and did not intend to register, and one responding organisation was not registered but intended to provide services under the NDIS.
Twelve per cent of responding organisations provided Supported Employment Services, five percent provided Disability Employment Services, and 18 per cent provided other remote services. Rural Remote Metropolitan Very Most responding organisations were established between 1951 and 2000 (64 per cent), while six per cent were established between 2001 and 2013 (pre-NDIS legislation) and 25 per cent were established in or after 2014.
Figure A4 Organisation headcount
Sole trader 4% Small (<50 people) 30% Medium (50 to 199 people) 34% Large (200-299 people) 29% Very large (>1,000 people) 4%
Publisher
National Disability Services
Michael Perusco
CEO
- Phone: 03 8341 4343
- Email: michael.perusco@nds.org.au
Copyright National Disability Services 2025. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form without the prior written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.
About National Disability Services
National Disability Services is Australia’s peak body for non-government disability service organisations. Collectively, NDS members operate several thousand services for 300,000 Australians with all types of disability.
Acknowledgements
The survey and analysis for the NDS State of the Disability Sector report is conducted independently by the research team at the Centre for Disability Research and Policy at the University of Sydney, led by Associate Professor Shane Clifton.
Our thanks to all those providers who completed the survey.