The latest quarterly snapshot dreams of a triumphant NDIS. In its boldest claim it asserts community and social participation among participants aged 15-plus has jumped from 34% at baseline to 41%, a relative leap of 21%.

The upbeat headline of the Report (which covers the period from 1 April to 30 June 2025) is that far more participants now report being part of their communities.

But wait. How thick is the skin of that “baseline”? Were early participants really so disproportionately socially isolated? Is it simply the length of time people have been enrolled that has accentuated gains?

Let’s not quibble unnecessarily; it’s a good number, not a bad one. But percentages seldom show the whole story.

The report also notes a 6-percentage-point rise in paid work among families and carers (from 47% to 53%) as if that's a sign the whole scheme is lifting more than the participants alone. Again — how deep does that go? Are families entering the workforce because of supports, or just because the economy is churning?

On children, the report flavours the figures: toddlers to school-starters show 4+ point improvements across all domains, while school-aged kids (up to 14) see more than 10-point jumps with daily living leaping 15 points.

Impressive at first glance. Yet such figures lack context. These are domains that often improve naturally as kids grow, with or without supports.

Meanwhile, for participants 15+, gains of more than 10 points are claimed across choice & control, daily living, health & wellbeing, and social participation. But contrast this to employment outcomes. Only young adults aged 15-24 show work participation more than doubling, from 10% to 23%.

This is, on one hand, terrific — because it demonstrates the scheme is achieving what it aims for. It doesn’t, however, answer the deeper question. Is 23% employment enough to call it a breakthrough? And is the 10% base start so low that the relative growth is overstated?

So there’s a collection of bright stats, but as always: read them critically. How much is scheme effect and how much is this just the statistical tug of a low starting point?

____________________________________

[continued from newsletter]

So let’s dig deeper into the NDIS spin — what’s being positioned as success could be a mix of genuine progress padded by clever phrasing.

Take that 21% relative rise in social participation among adults. A move from 34% to 41% is still a long way from majority inclusion. And if the baseline is already lagging, even a modest absolute gain looks dramatic in relative terms. It’s classic report-writing magic. It highlights the shiny percentage, not the low base.

Family and carer employment is up six points, and this is important. However, the report lumps carers and families into one category. Does this include parents whose children leave home, freeing up time to take on paid work? Or are we seeing financial pressure pushing carers into low-paid jobs?

abilityNEWS hasn’t had time to comb through the detailed report yet, and will continue doing this in coming weeks.

On children: from pre-school to primary school we can see healthy improvements (4–6 points) in domains like choice, relationship-building and fitting into community life. Older kids score 15 points in daily living. But child development isn’t static. Young people grow. A four-year-old starting to speak more than babble is a win. But is this directly attributable to NDIS interventions or the inevitable march of age? The report doesn’t say.

Nor, far more importantly, does it ever query the cost of intervention and compare it to outcomes. That’s the missing figure. A dollar amount that shows what we’re actually buying. Just as someone might want to know the price as they walk down a supermarket aisle.

Now, 15-plus participants are claimed to have improved across multiple life domains, which is great. But employment remains stubbornly low — only 23% of 15- to 24-year-olds are employed — compared to a 26% target. That’s decent progress from 10%, but still leaves nearly four in five young participants unemployed. A doubling feels like growth, but it’s from a very low bar.

And the fantasy of "greater choice and control"? More than 80% of participants say they feel more in charge of their lives now, up from 67%. That’s a feel-good figure, but self-reporting has limits. What does “control” really mean when providers, price lists and rigid plan periods govern what participants can do?

The report also brags that reforms are making NDIS stronger. Cost-growth has been cut to 10.8%. Still way over the 8% target. Overspending has shrunk from 7.6% to 5%. Wins for prudence? Or evidence participants are being nudged to spend less, not necessarily getting better?

The bigger the positive claim, the more buried the nuance.

So in short: yes, improvements exist. But add salt. These scores are plucked from selective snapshots, tangential gains are inflated by percentage tricks, and employment metrics remain underwhelming. Looks like progress, reads like spin.