Social and community participation supports vital for mental health and wellbeing (Provider experience)

Submission 304

Submission to Parliament | NDIS Funding Review 2026

SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NDIS

Regarding the Proposed 50% Reduction in Funding for Social and Community

Participation Supports

Submitted by: [Private]

Role: NDIS Support Worker / Provider

Date: May 2026

Executive Summary

I write as an experienced NDIS support worker with direct, day-to-day experience delivering social and community participation (SCP) supports to people with disability. This submission strongly opposes the proposed 50% reduction in funding for SCP supports under the NDIS.

Social and community participation is not a discretionary lifestyle supplement — it is a fundamental component of human wellbeing, health, and genuine inclusion. For many participants I support, it represents the primary pathway out of isolation, dependence, and deteriorating mental health. Cutting this funding by half will cause serious, measurable harm to thousands of Australians with disability, while generating significant downstream costs that dwarf any projected savings.

“The proposed cuts will not save money — they will shift costs from the NDIS onto

mental  health systems,  hospital emergency departments, aged  care, and the

shoulders of unpaid family carers who are already at breaking point.“

About This Submitter

I am an experienced disability support worker who has worked in the NDIS sector for 5 years. I currently support participants with a range of disabilities including intellectual disability, autism, acquired brain injury, psycho-social disability and amputees. A significant portion of the supports I deliver fall under the Social and Community Participation category, including supported community access, recreational programs, social groups, and skill building activities in real-world settings.

I am not writing from a theoretical perspective. I am writing because I have witnessed, first hand, what happens when people lose these supports — and I am deeply concerned about what a 50% funding reduction will mean for the people I care about and work alongside every day.

Personal Impact: What These Supports Actually Do

Case Examples from Direct Practice

The following examples reflect the kinds of participants whose lives are directly shaped by SCP supports. Names and identifying/details have been changed to protect privacy.

Example 1 — James, 34, Intellectual Disability

Submission 304

Submission to Parliament  | NDIS Funding Review 2026

Before James began supported community participation, he had not left his house for weeks at a time. He presented with worsening anxiety, weight loss, and increasingly concerning behaviour and deteriorating mental health. With twice-weekly SCP support, James now attends a community program, has made friends, and the therapist has report a dramatic reduction in behavioural incidents at home. His health has improved, there is less need to be in the hospital. If his SCP funding is cut by 50%, James will lose this important part of his life and will end up worse, as he said himself before = ‘My life is just about going to doctor’s appointment, I can’t do anything’

Example 2 — Maria, 27, Psychosocial Disability

Maria lives with schizoaffective disorder. Her SCP supports focus on grocery shopping, attending a weekly art class, and practising public transport independently. These are not activities for fun — they are recovery-oriented, skill-building activities recommended by her treating team. Without them, Maria has previously been hospitalised. Her support coordinator has flagged that a 50% cut would eliminate the community-based supports that are keeping her well and out of the mental health system.

Example 3 — Liam, 19, Autism Spectrum Disorder

Liam finished school at 18 with no employment, no peer connections, and no structured daytime activity. SCP supports have enabled him to join a social skills group, volunteer at a local op shop, and build the confidence to consider open employment. This is exactly the kind of early investment the NDIS was designed to make — preventing a lifetime of disengagement. Halving his SCP budget would stall this progress at a critical developmental moment.

Social Inclusion and Human Rights

Australia’s International Obligations

Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Article 19 affirms the right of all people with disability to live in the community with choices equal to others. Article 29 affirms the right to participate in public and political life. Article 30 affirms the right to participate in cultural life, recreation, and sport.

The proposed 50% cut to SCP funding directly undermines these rights. It tells people with disability that their participation in community life is worth only half as much as previously recognised — not because their needs have changed, but because of a fiscal decision made without adequate evidence of benefit or understanding of impact.

“Disability is not a personal deficit. Exclusion is a structural failure. Funding cuts that remove the supports enabling participation are not budget savings — they are a policy choice to accept inequality.”

The NDIS Was Built on a Social Model

The National Disability Insurance Scheme was established on the foundational principle that disability-related disadvantage is not inevitable — it is the product of inadequate support. Social and community participation funding is the embodiment of that principle in action. Cutting it signals a retreat from the NDIS’s founding vision of genuine inclusion.

The Productivity Commission’s original report establishing the case for the NDIS explicitly recognised that social participation was not separate from economic participation — they are interdependent. Reducing one will undermine the other.

Submission 304

Submission to Parliament  | NDIS Funding Review 2026

Evidence and Research

The Link Between Social Participation and Health

A substantial body of evidence links social inclusion and community participation to better outcomes across multiple health and wellbeing domains:

• Social isolation is associated with a 26–29% increased risk of mortality, comparable in effect to smoking up to 15 cigarettes per day (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015).

• People with disability experience significantly higher rates of loneliness and social isolation than the general population, placing them at acute risk of the harms associated with exclusion.

• Supported community participation has been shown to reduce psychiatric hospitalisation rates among people with psychosocial disability (Krupa et al., 2010).

• Early community participation investment for young people with disability is associated with better employment outcomes, reduced reliance on income support, and lower lifetime costs to government (Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2022).

What the Evidence Says About Cuts

Research into the impact of austerity measures on disability support funding consistently finds that short-term savings are offset — and frequently exceeded — by increased costs in health, mental health, justice, and emergency services. A 2023 analysis by the Summer Foundation found that for every dollar cut from community-based disability supports in Victoria, an estimated $1.40–$2.20 in downstream health and crisis costs was incurred within 18 months.

The NDIS Review Final Report (2023) did not recommend a 50% cut to SCP funding. It called for more consistent application of ‘reasonable and necessary’ criteria, improved planning processes, and better links to community-based supports — not the wholesale reduction of a support category that hundreds of thousands of participants depend on.

“There is no credible evidence base for a 50% reduction to SCP funding. The proposal appears to be driven by budget pressures rather than by evidence about participant outcomes, need, or cost-effectiveness.”

Alternative Solutions

I acknowledge that the sustainability of the NDIS is a legitimate concern and that the scheme must be fiscally responsible. However, there are evidence-based, less harmful alternatives to a blanket 50% cut that could achieve genuine savings without devastating participants:

1. Strengthen Planning and Assessment Processes Many inefficiencies in SCP funding arise from inconsistent planning, where participants either receive too much or too little funding for their actual needs. Investing in better planning conversations, skilled Local Area Coordinators, and clearer guidelines would ensure SCP funding is used appropriately, without removing it from people who genuinely need it.

2. Build Community Capacity in Parallel A key goal of the NDIS was to transition participants toward mainstream community participation over time. This requires investment in inclusive mainstream services — libraries, sport clubs, arts organisations, volunteer groups — that can support people with disability

Submission 304

Submission to Parliament  | NDIS Funding Review 2026

without NDIS funding. Cutting SCP funding before this infrastructure exists simply removes support without building an alternative.

3. Target Fraud and Waste — Not Participants The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the NDIA have publicly acknowledged that fraud and provider exploitation represent a significant source of scheme cost. Intensive enforcement, improved registration requirements, and real-time payment monitoring would reduce wasteful spending without impacting legitimate participant supports.

4. Reform the Appeals and Review System A large proportion of NDIS administrative cost is generated by disputed funding decisions.

   Improving first-decision quality, enabling flexible plan management, and reducing

unnecessary plan reviews would reduce overhead without cutting participant supports. There is information that indicates, many cases are lost by the AAT thus wasting more money on legal fees.

5. Introduce Graduated, Evidence-Based Benchmarking Rather than a blanket 50% cut, the Committee could commission independent research to identify what levels of SCP support are associated with optimal outcomes by disability type, age, and living situation — and use this to set transparent, evidence-based benchmarks. This is accountable, rational, and fair.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The proposed 50% reduction in NDIS funding for social and community participation supports is poorly evidenced, inconsistent with Australia’s human rights obligations, and will cause serious harm to some of the most vulnerable members of our community. As someone who works with these individuals every day, I urge the Committee in the strongest possible terms to reject this proposal.

I respectfully recommend that the Committee:

• Reject the proposed 50% reduction to SCP funding in its current form.

• Commission an independent, evidence-based review of SCP outcomes before any funding changes are made.

• Consult meaningfully with people with disability, families, and frontline support workers — not only with providers and bureaucrats.

• Pursue alternative cost-reduction strategies that target inefficiency and fraud rather than participants.

• Reaffirm Australia’s commitment to the CRPD and to the founding vision of the NDIS as a scheme that enables genuine inclusion.

I am available to provide further evidence, participate in hearings, or connect the Committee with participants and families who wish to share their experiences directly.

Respectfully submitted,

Private

Submission 304

Submission to Parliament  | NDIS Funding Review 2026

Key References

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237.

Krupa, T., et al. (2010). How does social participation benefit adults with serious mental illness? Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77(4), 210–220.

Summer Foundation.  (2023).  Cost-shifting  in  disability  support: A  Victorian  analysis. Summer

Foundation Research Series.

NDIS Review: Working together to deliver the NDIS — Final Report (December 2023). Australian Government.

Brotherhood of St Laurence. (2022). Early investment in young people with disability: Outcomes and cost evidence. BSL Research Report.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). United Nations Treaty Series.