What disability housing support could look like – beyond Australia’s outdated group home model

Group homes have long been the default living arrangement for Australians with disabilities who require extensive support. Typically, multiple individuals with disabilities reside under the same roof, managed by a team of support workers. Historically, policymakers deemed this approach the most cost-effective means of delivering secure and high-quality services.

However, the evidence suggests otherwise. In 2023, the Disability Royal Commission and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Quality and Safeguards Commission's Own Motion Inquiry Report revealed that the approximately 17,000 people living in group homes face a heightened risk of violence, abuse, and neglect. Recent findings indicate that transitioning to more contemporary housing options, specifically tailored to their unique needs, could significantly enhance the health, wellbeing, and community integration of people with disabilities.

One promising alternative to group homes in Australia, introduced in the past decade, is apartments funded by Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) payments. These apartments, estimated to be nearly 3,000 in number, are integrated into mainstream residential developments, designed to promote independence, community engagement, and the efficient provision of support.

An apartment resident, Bruce Camplin, recently shared his experience with ABC: In the two years and two months since moving into his apartment, he has met more people than he did in the 34 years he spent at the group home. In certain locations, such as British Columbia in Canada, group homes are now predominantly reserved for individuals with the most significant support requirements.

Therefore, apart from the SDA apartments, what other alternatives exist to group homes, and what is preventing their broader adoption in Australia? To understand the current situation, it is essential to delve into the historical context. Prior to the NDIS, housing and support were block-funded, meaning the government directly paid providers to manage housing and support services, irrespective of whether residents' needs were met or their lives improved.

When the NDIS was implemented, individualized funding and market competition were expected to spark innovation and change. Unfortunately, this has not materialized: most group homes and their residents have simply shifted from state systems to the NDIS, and providers have continued delivering similar services under a new funding model.

Within group homes, support is referred to as supported independent living (SIL). NDIS spending on SIL has surged by 40% over three years, reaching A$12.4 billion in 2025–26. By 2033, it is projected that over 50,000 individuals will receive SIL, as aging parents are no longer able to care for their adult children with disabilities.

In the current market, NDIS participants with high support needs generally only have access to two types of services from support workers: a minimum two-hour block scheduled in advance or a fixed round-the-clock roster in a group home. Despite the escalating costs, this form of care does not provide the flexibility or autonomy many individuals with disabilities desire.

So, what are the alternatives? On the international stage, various models have demonstrated that people with high support needs can benefit from more flexible, personalized options, often at lower costs. Host and homeshare arrangements involve a person with a disability sharing a house with a live-in supporter who provides companionship and light support, such as helping with daily routines or meal preparation.

In return, the host or housemate receives a stipend, reimbursement, or free rent, depending on the arrangement. Our economic analysis indicates that host and homeshare could potentially save the government approximately $51,000 per person annually compared to group home arrangements involving one support worker and three participants.

Another affordable option is the drop-in and on-call model, which enables a person with a disability to live independently while having access to scheduled assistance for a short period (15–60 minutes) or on-demand support from a reliable on-call service when unforeseen needs arise. This support, delivered by a local team of mobile support workers, allows individuals to remain in their homes while knowing that assistance will be available when needed.

While pockets of innovation demonstrate that alternative models of support are feasible in Australia, there is an urgent need to diversify the available options to reduce the reliance on costly group home arrangements. With the government seeking to control NDIS costs, it is currently exploring a more proactive approach, which includes commissioning a smaller number of providers to deliver supported independent living for some NDIS participants, addressing concerns over rising costs, poor outcomes, and struggling providers.

Three pressures are driving this shift: increasing costs, subpar outcomes, and providers facing financial difficulties due to the growing vacancy rates in group homes. Some NDIS participants are choosing to leave group homes, while older residents are not always replaced by younger individuals. For those who continue to reside in group homes, it is crucial to measure the quality and effectiveness of these services, ensuring that providers remain viable amidst rising costs and vacancies.

The government must also invest in the development of contemporary housing and support services to cater to the diverse needs and expectations of the next generation of NDIS participants.