Are NDIS Participant Outcomes Changing?

A simpler look at national NDIS participant outcome levels and changes after plan reassessment.

The simplest outcomes question is not about spend. It is this:

Can we see any change in outcomes for NDIS participants?

This post starts there. It uses the public participant outcomes files to ask what outcomes are measured, what the current national levels look like, and how reported outcomes change after plan reassessment. The analysis is descriptive. It shows changes in aggregate survey outcomes; it does not prove that the NDIS caused those changes for any individual participant.

The companion budget and utilisation model is here.

clean_names <- function(x) {
  x |>
    str_to_lower() |>
    str_replace_all("&", "and") |>
    str_replace_all("[^a-z0-9]+", "_") |>
    str_replace_all("^_|_$", "")
}

clean_df <- function(x) {
  names(x) <- clean_names(names(x))
  x
}

as_number <- function(x) {
  if (is.numeric(x)) return(x)
  parse_number(
    as.character(x),
    na = c("", "NA", "na", "n/a", "Not applicable", "No data available", "\\")
  )
}

as_rate <- function(x) {
  out <- as_number(x)
  ifelse(out > 1.5, out / 100, out)
}

safe_median <- function(x) {
  x <- x[is.finite(x)]
  if (length(x) == 0) return(NA_real_)
  median(x)
}

format_optional_percent <- function(x, accuracy = 1) {
  ifelse(is.na(x), NA_character_, percent(x, accuracy = accuracy))
}

read_page <- function(url) {
  paste(readLines(url, warn = FALSE, encoding = "UTF-8"), collapse = "\n")
}

extract_links <- function(url) {
  html <- read_page(url)
  base_url <- str_replace(url, "^(https?://[^/]+).*$", "\\1")
  matches <- gregexpr("<a[^>]+href=[\"']([^\"']+)[\"'][^>]*>(.*?)</a>", html, perl = TRUE)
  pieces <- regmatches(html, matches)[[1]]
  if (length(pieces) == 0) return(tibble(label = character(), url = character()))

  tibble(raw = pieces) |>
    mutate(
      href = str_match(raw, "href=[\"']([^\"']+)[\"']")[, 2],
      label = raw |>
        str_replace_all("<[^>]+>", " ") |>
        str_squish(),
      url = case_when(
        str_detect(href, "^https?://") ~ href,
        str_detect(href, "^/") ~ paste0(base_url, href),
        TRUE ~ paste0(str_remove(url, "/[^/]*$"), "/", href)
      )
    ) |>
    select(label, url)
}

download_one <- function(url, filename) {
  path <- file.path(raw_dir, filename)
  if (!file.exists(path)) {
    download.file(url, path, mode = "wb", quiet = TRUE)
  }
  path
}

download_named <- function(page_url, label_regex, filename) {
  path <- file.path(raw_dir, filename)
  if (file.exists(path)) return(path)

  link <- extract_links(page_url) |>
    filter(str_detect(label, regex(label_regex, ignore_case = TRUE))) |>
    slice(1)

  if (nrow(link) == 0) return(NA_character_)
  download_one(link$url[[1]], filename)
}

cohort_levels <- c(
  "Early childhood",
  "School age",
  "Young people",
  "Adults",
  "Family/carer of children",
  "Family/carer of adults"
)

standardise_cohort <- function(questionnaire) {
  case_when(
    questionnaire == "Participant 0 to before school" ~ "Early childhood",
    questionnaire == "Participant starting school to 14" ~ "School age",
    questionnaire == "Participant 15 to 24" ~ "Young people",
    questionnaire == "Participant 25 and over" ~ "Adults",
    questionnaire == "Family/carer of participant 0 to 14" ~ "Family/carer of children",
    questionnaire == "Family/carer of participant 15 and over" ~ "Family/carer of adults",
    TRUE ~ questionnaire
  )
}

classify_outcome_theme <- function(indicator) {
  text <- str_to_lower(indicator)
  case_when(
    str_detect(text, "concerns|development|functional|self-care|independent|daily living") ~ "Development and daily living",
    str_detect(text, "communicat|tell them what|what they want") ~ "Communication",
    str_detect(text, "choice|control|decisions|advocacy|advocate|rights|choose who supports|choose what they do") ~ "Choice and control",
    str_detect(text, "friend|relationship|community|social|family life|meet more people|be more involved|welcomed|included") ~ "Relationships and community",
    str_detect(text, "home|safe") ~ "Home and safety",
    str_detect(text, "health|wellbeing|well-being") ~ "Health and wellbeing",
    str_detect(text, "school|education|training|learn|course|job|employment|paid job|volunteer|mainstream settings") ~ "Learning and work",
    str_detect(text, "services|specialist|programs and activities") ~ "Service access",
    TRUE ~ "Other outcomes"
  )
}

classify_direction <- function(indicator) {
  text <- str_to_lower(indicator)
  case_when(
    str_detect(text, "concerns in 6 or more|with no friends|no friends other than|unable to do .*wanted|difficulties accessing") &
      !str_detect(text, "did not have any difficulties") ~ "Lower is better",
    str_detect(text, "want more choice and control") ~ "Lower may be better",
    str_detect(text, "^has the ndis|involvement with the ndis|ndis helped") ~ "Reported improvement",
    str_detect(text, "^%|^of those") ~ "Higher is better",
    TRUE ~ "Interpret with care"
  )
}

direction_adjust_change <- function(change, direction) {
  case_when(
    direction == "Lower is better" ~ -change,
    direction == "Higher is better" ~ change,
    TRUE ~ NA_real_
  )
}

Data

The two source files are the national NDIS participant outcomes extracts:

1. Baseline outcomes: current reported levels by state, respondent group and indicator.
2. Longitudinal outcomes: baseline and reassessment values for people with different numbers of plan reassessments.

The main charts use the national rows only, where StateCd == "ALL". Participant cohorts are shown first. Family and carer outcomes are kept as a short companion note at the end.

baseline_outcomes_path <- download_named(
  page_urls$participant,
  "^Baseline Outcomes data",
  "baseline_outcomes.csv"
)

longitudinal_outcomes_path <- download_named(
  page_urls$participant,
  "^Longitudinal Outcomes data",
  "longitudinal_outcomes.csv"
)

baseline_raw <- read_csv(
  baseline_outcomes_path,
  na = c("", "NA", "na", "n/a"),
  show_col_types = FALSE
) |>
  clean_df() |>
  mutate(
    report_date = dmy(rprtdt),
    percentage = as_rate(percentage),
    cohort_label = factor(standardise_cohort(questionnaire), levels = cohort_levels),
    outcome_theme = classify_outcome_theme(indicator_description),
    direction = classify_direction(indicator_description),
    respondent_type = if_else(str_detect(questionnaire, "^Participant"), "Participant", "Family/carer")
  )

longitudinal_raw <- read_csv(
  longitudinal_outcomes_path,
  na = c("", "NA", "na", "n/a"),
  show_col_types = FALSE
) |>
  clean_df() |>
  mutate(
    report_date = dmy(rprtdt),
    across(starts_with("percentage_"), as_rate),
    cohort_label = factor(standardise_cohort(questionnaire), levels = cohort_levels),
    outcome_theme = classify_outcome_theme(indicator_description),
    direction = classify_direction(indicator_description),
    respondent_type = if_else(str_detect(questionnaire, "^Participant"), "Participant", "Family/carer")
  )

participant_baseline <- baseline_raw |>
  filter(statecd == "ALL", respondent_type == "Participant")

participant_longitudinal <- longitudinal_raw |>
  filter(statecd == "ALL", respondent_type == "Participant")

family_longitudinal <- longitudinal_raw |>
  filter(statecd == "ALL", respondent_type == "Family/carer")

source_summary <- tibble(
  file = c("Baseline outcomes", "Longitudinal outcomes"),
  report_date = c(max(baseline_raw$report_date, na.rm = TRUE), max(longitudinal_raw$report_date, na.rm = TRUE)),
  national_participant_rows = c(nrow(participant_baseline), nrow(participant_longitudinal)),
  participant_cohorts = c(n_distinct(participant_baseline$cohort_label), n_distinct(participant_longitudinal$cohort_label))
)

source_summary |>
  mutate(
    report_date = format(report_date, "%d %B %Y"),
    national_participant_rows = comma(national_participant_rows)
  ) |>
  kable()

file	report_date	national_participant_rows	participant_cohorts
Baseline outcomes	31 March 2026	42	4
Longitudinal outcomes	31 March 2026	670	4

What Outcomes Are Measured?

The participant files cover four broad age cohorts. The outcomes are not identical across ages: early-childhood items focus on development and communication, school-age items add education and independence, and adult items add choice, home, health, education, work and volunteering.

participant_outcome_map <- bind_rows(
  participant_baseline |>
    transmute(cohort_label, outcome_theme, indicator_description, direction),
  participant_longitudinal |>
    transmute(cohort_label, outcome_theme, indicator_description, direction)
) |>
  distinct()

outcome_theme_table <- participant_outcome_map |>
  group_by(cohort_label, outcome_theme) |>
  summarise(
    outcomes = n_distinct(indicator_description),
    example_outcomes = str_c(head(unique(indicator_description), 2), collapse = "; "),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  arrange(cohort_label, outcome_theme)

outcome_theme_table |>
  mutate(cohort_label = as.character(cohort_label)) |>
  kable(col.names = c("Cohort", "Outcome theme", "Outcomes", "Example outcomes"))

Cohort	Outcome theme	Outcomes	Example outcomes
Early childhood	Communication	2	% who say their child is able to tell them what he/she wants; Has the NDIS helped increase your child’s ability to communicate what they want?
Early childhood	Development and daily living	2	% with concerns in 6 or more of the areas: gross motor skills, fine motor skills, self-care, eating, social interaction, communication, cognitive development, sensory processing; Has the NDIS improved your child’s development?
Early childhood	Relationships and community	5	% of children who can make friends with people outside the family; % of children who participate in age appropriate community, cultural or religious activities
Early childhood	Service access	1	Has the NDIS improved your child’s access to specialist services?
School age	Choice and control	1	% of children who have a genuine say in decisions about themselves
School age	Development and daily living	3	% developing functional, learning and coping skills appropriate to their ability and circumstances; % who say their child is becoming more independent
School age	Learning and work	2	% of children attending school in a mainstream class; Has the NDIS improved your child’s access to education?
School age	Relationships and community	7	% of children who can make friends with people outside the family; % of children who spend time after school and on weekends with friends and/or in mainstream programs
Young people	Choice and control	6	% who are happy with the level of independence/control they have now; % who choose who supports them
Young people	Development and daily living	1	Has the NDIS helped you with daily living activities?
Young people	Health and wellbeing	3	% who rate their health as good, very good or excellent; % who did not have any difficulties accessing health services
Young people	Home and safety	3	% who are happy with their home; % who feel safe or very safe in their home
Young people	Learning and work	5	% who currently attend or previously attended school in a mainstream class; % who have a paid job
Young people	Relationships and community	4	% with no friends other than family or paid staff; % who have been actively involved in a community, cultural or religious group in the last 12 months
Adults	Choice and control	5	% who choose who supports them; % who choose what they do each day
Adults	Development and daily living	2	% who participate in education, training or skill development; Has the NDIS helped you with daily living activities?
Adults	Health and wellbeing	3	% who rate their health as good, very good or excellent; % who did not have any difficulties accessing health services
Adults	Home and safety	3	% who are happy with their home; % who feel safe or very safe in their home
Adults	Learning and work	6	Of those who participate, % who do so in mainstream settings; % unable to do a course or training they wanted to do in the last 12 months
Adults	Relationships and community	4	% with no friends other than family or paid staff; % who have been actively involved in a community, cultural or religious group in the last 12 months

The direction labels are deliberately conservative. Most percentage items are easier to read as higher is better, but some indicators are clearly negative: concerns in many areas, having no friends other than family or paid staff, or being unable to do a course or training the participant wanted to do.

participant_outcome_map |>
  count(direction, sort = TRUE, name = "outcomes") |>
  kable(col.names = c("Direction label", "Outcome rows"))

Direction label	Outcome rows
Higher is better	35
Reported improvement	25
Lower is better	4
Interpret with care	2
Lower may be better	2

Current Levels

The baseline file gives the latest national level for each participant indicator. This is the best starting point before asking whether anything changed.

baseline_theme_summary <- participant_baseline |>
  group_by(cohort_label, outcome_theme) |>
  summarise(
    outcomes = n_distinct(indicator_description),
    median_level = safe_median(percentage),
    p25 = quantile(percentage, 0.25, na.rm = TRUE),
    p75 = quantile(percentage, 0.75, na.rm = TRUE),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  filter(is.finite(median_level))

baseline_theme_summary |>
  ggplot(aes(fct_reorder(outcome_theme, median_level), median_level)) +
  geom_col(fill = "#2f6f73") +
  geom_errorbar(aes(ymin = p25, ymax = p75), width = 0.2, colour = "grey35") +
  coord_flip() +
  facet_wrap(~ cohort_label, scales = "free_y") +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = percent) +
  labs(x = NULL, y = "Baseline percentage")

Median national baseline outcome level by participant cohort and outcome theme.

participant_baseline |>
  arrange(cohort_label, outcome_theme, indicator_number) |>
  transmute(
    Cohort = as.character(cohort_label),
    Theme = outcome_theme,
    Outcome = indicator_description,
    Direction = direction,
    Level = percent(percentage, accuracy = 1)
  ) |>
  kable()

Cohort	Theme	Outcome	Direction	Level
Early childhood	Communication	% who say their child is able to tell them what he/she wants	Higher is better	68%
Early childhood	Development and daily living	% with concerns in 6 or more of the areas: gross motor skills, fine motor skills, self-care, eating, social interaction, communication, cognitive development, sensory processing	Lower is better	67%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	% of children who can make friends with people outside the family	Higher is better	56%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	% of children who participate in age appropriate community, cultural or religious activities	Higher is better	47%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	Of these, % who are welcomed or actively included	Interpret with care	63%
School age	Choice and control	% of children who have a genuine say in decisions about themselves	Higher is better	79%
School age	Development and daily living	% developing functional, learning and coping skills appropriate to their ability and circumstances	Higher is better	24%
School age	Development and daily living	% who say their child is becoming more independent	Higher is better	39%
School age	Learning and work	% of children attending school in a mainstream class	Higher is better	78%
School age	Relationships and community	% of children who can make friends with people outside the family	Higher is better	66%
School age	Relationships and community	% of children who spend time after school and on weekends with friends and/or in mainstream programs	Higher is better	42%
School age	Relationships and community	Of these, % who are welcomed or actively included	Interpret with care	74%
School age	Relationships and community	% of children who spend time with friends without an adult present	Higher is better	13%
Young people	Choice and control	% who are happy with the level of independence/control they have now	Higher is better	30%
Young people	Choice and control	% who choose who supports them	Higher is better	41%
Young people	Choice and control	% who choose what they do each day	Higher is better	51%
Young people	Choice and control	% who had been given the opportunity to participate in a self-advocacy group meeting	Higher is better	19%
Young people	Choice and control	% who want more choice and control in their life	Lower may be better	82%
Young people	Health and wellbeing	% who rate their health as good, very good or excellent	Higher is better	64%
Young people	Health and wellbeing	% who did not have any difficulties accessing health services	Higher is better	65%
Young people	Home and safety	% who are happy with their home	Higher is better	78%
Young people	Home and safety	% who feel safe or very safe in their home	Higher is better	84%
Young people	Learning and work	% who currently attend or previously attended school in a mainstream class	Higher is better	46%
Young people	Learning and work	% who have a paid job	Higher is better	18%
Young people	Learning and work	% who volunteer	Higher is better	9%
Young people	Relationships and community	% with no friends other than family or paid staff	Lower is better	33%
Young people	Relationships and community	% who have been actively involved in a community, cultural or religious group in the last 12 months	Higher is better	28%
Adults	Choice and control	% who choose who supports them	Higher is better	66%
Adults	Choice and control	% who choose what they do each day	Higher is better	73%
Adults	Choice and control	% who had been given the opportunity to participate in a self-advocacy group meeting	Higher is better	24%
Adults	Choice and control	% who want more choice and control in their life	Lower may be better	78%
Adults	Development and daily living	% who participate in education, training or skill development	Higher is better	9%
Adults	Health and wellbeing	% who rate their health as good, very good or excellent	Higher is better	39%
Adults	Health and wellbeing	% who did not have any difficulties accessing health services	Higher is better	59%
Adults	Home and safety	% who are happy with their home	Higher is better	67%
Adults	Home and safety	% who feel safe or very safe in their home	Higher is better	67%
Adults	Learning and work	Of those who participate, % who do so in mainstream settings	Higher is better	69%
Adults	Learning and work	% unable to do a course or training they wanted to do in the last 12 months	Lower is better	36%
Adults	Learning and work	% who have a paid job	Higher is better	23%
Adults	Learning and work	% who volunteer	Higher is better	10%
Adults	Relationships and community	% with no friends other than family or paid staff	Lower is better	34%
Adults	Relationships and community	% who have been actively involved in a community, cultural or religious group in the last 12 months	Higher is better	30%

At baseline, the adult indicators show some obvious gaps as well as strengths. For example, many adults report choice over daily decisions and supports, but paid work and volunteering are much lower-level outcomes. For children, the outcome set is different: it is more about development, communication, friendships, community inclusion and school.

Change After Reassessment

The cleanest first longitudinal comparison is baseline to reassessment 1 among national participant rows with one plan reassessment. This keeps the comparison simple and avoids mixing people with very different reassessment histories.

participant_reassessment1 <- participant_longitudinal |>
  filter(number_of_plan_reassessments == 1) |>
  transmute(
    cohort_label,
    outcome_theme,
    indicator_number,
    indicator_description,
    direction,
    baseline = percentage_baseline,
    reassessment_1 = percentage_reassessment_1,
    raw_change = reassessment_1 - baseline,
    direction_adjusted_change = direction_adjust_change(raw_change, direction)
  )

comparable_reassessment1 <- participant_reassessment1 |>
  filter(is.finite(baseline), is.finite(reassessment_1), is.finite(direction_adjusted_change))

reassessment1_summary <- comparable_reassessment1 |>
  group_by(cohort_label, outcome_theme) |>
  summarise(
    outcomes = n_distinct(indicator_description),
    median_change = safe_median(direction_adjusted_change),
    p25 = quantile(direction_adjusted_change, 0.25, na.rm = TRUE),
    p75 = quantile(direction_adjusted_change, 0.75, na.rm = TRUE),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  filter(is.finite(median_change))

reassessment1_summary |>
  ggplot(aes(fct_reorder(outcome_theme, median_change), median_change)) +
  geom_hline(yintercept = 0, colour = "grey60") +
  geom_col(fill = "#7a5c2e") +
  geom_errorbar(aes(ymin = p25, ymax = p75), width = 0.2, colour = "grey35") +
  coord_flip() +
  facet_wrap(~ cohort_label, scales = "free_y") +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = percent) +
  labs(x = NULL, y = "Direction-adjusted percentage-point change")

Median direction-adjusted change from baseline to reassessment 1.

Most of the comparable indicators move in a favourable direction after the first reassessment, but the size varies. The table below keeps the raw baseline and reassessment percentages visible, then adds a direction-adjusted change only where the direction is clear.

comparable_reassessment1 |>
  mutate(abs_change = abs(direction_adjusted_change)) |>
  arrange(desc(abs_change)) |>
  slice_head(n = 25) |>
  transmute(
    Cohort = as.character(cohort_label),
    Theme = outcome_theme,
    Outcome = indicator_description,
    Direction = direction,
    Baseline = percent(baseline, accuracy = 1),
    `Reassessment 1` = percent(reassessment_1, accuracy = 1),
    `Raw change` = percent(raw_change, accuracy = 0.1),
    `Adjusted change` = percent(direction_adjusted_change, accuracy = 0.1)
  ) |>
  kable()

Cohort	Theme	Outcome	Direction	Baseline	Reassessment 1	Raw change	Adjusted change
Early childhood	Communication	% who say their child is able to tell them what he/she wants	Higher is better	62%	77%	15.0%	15.0%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	% of children who can make friends with people outside the family	Higher is better	49%	59%	10.0%	10.0%
Early childhood	Development and daily living	% with concerns in 6 or more of the areas: gross motor skills, fine motor skills, self-care, eating, social interaction, communication, cognitive development, sensory processing	Lower is better	69%	76%	7.0%	-7.0%
School age	Development and daily living	% who say their child is becoming more independent	Higher is better	43%	49%	6.0%	6.0%
Young people	Learning and work	% who have a paid job	Higher is better	15%	19%	4.0%	4.0%
School age	Learning and work	% of children attending school in a mainstream class	Higher is better	81%	78%	-3.0%	-3.0%
Young people	Choice and control	% who are happy with the level of independence/control they have now	Higher is better	29%	32%	3.0%	3.0%
Young people	Choice and control	% who choose who supports them	Higher is better	36%	39%	3.0%	3.0%
Adults	Relationships and community	% who have been actively involved in a community, cultural or religious group in the last 12 months	Higher is better	29%	32%	3.0%	3.0%
Young people	Choice and control	% who choose what they do each day	Higher is better	46%	49%	3.0%	3.0%
Young people	Relationships and community	% who have been actively involved in a community, cultural or religious group in the last 12 months	Higher is better	28%	31%	3.0%	3.0%
School age	Relationships and community	% of children who can make friends with people outside the family	Higher is better	67%	70%	3.0%	3.0%
Young people	Health and wellbeing	% who did not have any difficulties accessing health services	Higher is better	70%	72%	2.0%	2.0%
Adults	Home and safety	% who are happy with their home	Higher is better	66%	68%	2.0%	2.0%
Adults	Health and wellbeing	% who did not have any difficulties accessing health services	Higher is better	59%	61%	2.0%	2.0%
Adults	Learning and work	% unable to do a course or training they wanted to do in the last 12 months	Lower is better	37%	35%	-2.0%	2.0%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	% of children who participate in age appropriate community, cultural or religious activities	Higher is better	45%	47%	2.0%	2.0%
School age	Development and daily living	% developing functional, learning and coping skills appropriate to their ability and circumstances	Higher is better	28%	30%	2.0%	2.0%
School age	Choice and control	% of children who have a genuine say in decisions about themselves	Higher is better	79%	80%	1.0%	1.0%
School age	Relationships and community	% of children who spend time after school and on weekends with friends and/or in mainstream programs	Higher is better	38%	39%	1.0%	1.0%
Young people	Relationships and community	% with no friends other than family or paid staff	Lower is better	34%	33%	-1.0%	1.0%
Young people	Health and wellbeing	% who rate their health as good, very good or excellent	Higher is better	67%	66%	-1.0%	-1.0%
Young people	Learning and work	% who currently attend or previously attended school in a mainstream class	Higher is better	46%	45%	-1.0%	-1.0%
Adults	Choice and control	% who choose what they do each day	Higher is better	74%	75%	1.0%	1.0%
Adults	Home and safety	% who feel safe or very safe in their home	Higher is better	64%	65%	1.0%	1.0%

Some longitudinal items ask directly whether the NDIS helped or improved something. These do not have a meaningful baseline percentage, so they are better read as reassessment-level responses rather than baseline-to-reassessment changes.

direct_improvement_items <- participant_reassessment1 |>
  filter(is.na(baseline), is.finite(reassessment_1), direction == "Reported improvement") |>
  arrange(cohort_label, outcome_theme, indicator_number)

direct_improvement_items |>
  transmute(
    Cohort = as.character(cohort_label),
    Theme = outcome_theme,
    Outcome = indicator_description,
    `Reported improvement at reassessment 1` = percent(reassessment_1, accuracy = 1)
  ) |>
  kable()

Cohort	Theme	Outcome	Reported improvement at reassessment 1
Early childhood	Communication	Has the NDIS helped increase your child’s ability to communicate what they want?	85%
Early childhood	Development and daily living	Has the NDIS improved your child’s development?	92%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS improved how your child fits into family life?	84%
Early childhood	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS improved how your child fits into community life?	71%
Early childhood	Service access	Has the NDIS improved your child’s access to specialist services?	93%
School age	Development and daily living	Has the NDIS helped your child to become more independent?	72%
School age	Learning and work	Has the NDIS improved your child’s access to education?	53%
School age	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS improved your child’s relationships with family and friends?	63%
School age	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS improved your child’s social and recreational life?	57%
Young people	Choice and control	Has the NDIS helped you have more choices and more control over your life?	69%
Young people	Development and daily living	Has the NDIS helped you with daily living activities?	66%
Young people	Health and wellbeing	Has your involvement with the NDIS improved your health and wellbeing?	52%
Young people	Home and safety	Has your involvement with the NDIS helped you to choose a home that’s right for you?	27%
Young people	Learning and work	Has your involvement with the NDIS helped you to learn things you want to learn or to take courses you want to take?	39%
Young people	Learning and work	Has your involvement with the NDIS helped you find a job that’s right for you?	23%
Young people	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS helped you to meet more people?	50%
Young people	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS helped you be more involved?	58%
Adults	Choice and control	Has the NDIS helped you have more choices and more control over your life?	78%
Adults	Development and daily living	Has the NDIS helped you with daily living activities?	80%
Adults	Health and wellbeing	Has your involvement with the NDIS improved your health and wellbeing?	62%
Adults	Home and safety	Has your involvement with the NDIS helped you to choose a home that’s right for you?	36%
Adults	Learning and work	Has your involvement with the NDIS helped you to learn things you want to learn or to take courses you want to take?	33%
Adults	Learning and work	Has your involvement with the NDIS helped you find a job that’s right for you?	21%
Adults	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS helped you to meet more people?	57%
Adults	Relationships and community	Has the NDIS helped you be more involved?	65%

Later Reassessments

The longitudinal file also includes reassessment 2 and later columns. Those are useful as a rough trend, but they should be read carefully: later reassessment rows are not a clean participant-level panel in this public extract, and the mix of participants changes as reassessment history gets longer.

reassessment_cols <- names(participant_longitudinal) |>
  keep(\(nm) str_detect(nm, "^percentage_reassessment_"))

participant_trend <- participant_longitudinal |>
  filter(
    is.finite(percentage_baseline),
    direction %in% c("Higher is better", "Lower is better")
  ) |>
  pivot_longer(
    all_of(reassessment_cols),
    names_to = "reassessment",
    values_to = "reassessment_value"
  ) |>
  mutate(
    reassessment_number = as.integer(str_extract(reassessment, "[0-9]+")),
    raw_change = reassessment_value - percentage_baseline,
    direction_adjusted_change = direction_adjust_change(raw_change, direction)
  ) |>
  filter(
    reassessment_number <= number_of_plan_reassessments,
    reassessment_number <= 7,
    is.finite(direction_adjusted_change)
  )

trend_summary <- participant_trend |>
  group_by(reassessment_number) |>
  summarise(
    rows = n(),
    outcome_cohort_pairs = n_distinct(str_c(cohort_label, indicator_number, sep = "::")),
    median_change = safe_median(direction_adjusted_change),
    p25 = quantile(direction_adjusted_change, 0.25, na.rm = TRUE),
    p75 = quantile(direction_adjusted_change, 0.75, na.rm = TRUE),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  filter(rows >= 20)

if (nrow(trend_summary) > 0) {
  trend_summary |>
    ggplot(aes(reassessment_number, median_change)) +
    geom_hline(yintercept = 0, colour = "grey60") +
    geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = p25, ymax = p75), fill = "#b7c7a3", alpha = 0.45) +
    geom_line(colour = "#395f3b", linewidth = 0.8) +
    geom_point(colour = "#395f3b", size = 2) +
    scale_x_continuous(breaks = trend_summary$reassessment_number) +
    scale_y_continuous(labels = percent) +
    labs(x = "Reassessment number", y = "Direction-adjusted change from baseline")
} else {
  tibble(note = "There are not enough later reassessment rows to draw a stable trend.") |>
    kable()
}

Median direction-adjusted change by reassessment number.

trend_summary |>
  transmute(
    Reassessment = reassessment_number,
    Rows = comma(rows),
    `Outcome/cohort pairs` = outcome_cohort_pairs,
    `Median adjusted change` = percent(median_change, accuracy = 0.1),
    `25th percentile` = percent(p25, accuracy = 0.1),
    `75th percentile` = percent(p75, accuracy = 0.1)
  ) |>
  kable()

Reassessment	Rows	Outcome/cohort pairs	Median adjusted change	25th percentile	75th percentile
1	326	39	0.0%	-1.0%	2.0%
2	287	39	0.0%	-2.0%	2.0%
3	248	39	0.0%	-2.0%	4.0%
4	197	39	0.0%	-3.0%	4.0%
5	156	39	0.0%	-3.0%	4.3%
6	118	35	1.0%	-3.0%	6.8%
7	83	35	1.0%	-2.5%	6.5%

The later-reassessment pattern is best read as directional context, not as a precise individual trajectory. Still, it helps separate the first question from the bigger spend question: the public data does show reported outcome movement after entry, even before we try to link those changes to budgets, service markets or regional access.

Family And Carer Note

Family and carer outcomes are part of the public outcomes files, but they answer a different question. They are about the circumstances of the family or carer around the participant, not the participant’s own outcome level. For this reason, they sit beside the participant story rather than inside it.

family_reassessment1 <- family_longitudinal |>
  filter(number_of_plan_reassessments == 1) |>
  transmute(
    cohort_label,
    outcome_theme,
    indicator_description,
    direction,
    baseline = percentage_baseline,
    reassessment_1 = percentage_reassessment_1,
    raw_change = reassessment_1 - baseline,
    direction_adjusted_change = direction_adjust_change(raw_change, direction)
  )

family_summary <- family_reassessment1 |>
  group_by(cohort_label) |>
  summarise(
    comparable_outcomes = sum(is.finite(direction_adjusted_change)),
    median_adjusted_change = safe_median(direction_adjusted_change),
    direct_improvement_items = sum(is.na(baseline) & is.finite(reassessment_1)),
    median_direct_improvement = safe_median(reassessment_1[is.na(baseline) & is.finite(reassessment_1)]),
    .groups = "drop"
  )

family_summary |>
  transmute(
    Cohort = as.character(cohort_label),
    `Comparable outcomes` = comparable_outcomes,
    `Median adjusted change` = format_optional_percent(median_adjusted_change, accuracy = 0.1),
    `Direct improvement items` = direct_improvement_items,
    `Median direct improvement response` = format_optional_percent(median_direct_improvement, accuracy = 1)
  ) |>
  kable()

Cohort	Comparable outcomes	Median adjusted change	Direct improvement items	Median direct improvement response
Family/carer of children	12	2.0%	5	78%
Family/carer of adults	12	1.0%	4	61%

The family and carer rows are useful, especially for questions about informal care, work, confidence, health and service access. They should not be blended with participant rows when the main question is whether participant outcomes themselves changed.

Caveats

• These are aggregate public survey rows, not participant-level records.
• The reassessment comparisons are descriptive. They do not prove causation.
• Later reassessment rows may reflect a different participant mix from earlier reassessment rows.
• Direction-adjusting outcomes helps readability, but it does not make all indicators equally important.
• Some items ask whether the NDIS helped or improved something. Those are reassessment responses, not true baseline-to-change measures.
• Spend, provider access and regional service-market questions are deliberately left out of this simplified version.