From the outset, the NDIA has relied on a regulated market to deliver NDIS supports, including Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA). Notably, in 2015, through its then Chair, Bruce Bonyhady, the NDIA stated that its role is to fund supports, not build “bricks and mortar.”
A decade on, despite billions committed, thousands of participants still can’t access the housing for which they’ve been approved. According to NDIA demand data, over 9,800 participants nationally have SDA funding or eligibility but are not yet living in SDA; in Victoria, for example, 2,054 participants are still actively seeking SDA despite having funding. So funding isn’t translating into access.
Why is the SDA market failing?
Everyone has their theories. These are mine:
Insufficient or mismatched stock: Dwellings often don’t align with design categories (High Physical Support, Robust, Fully Accessible, Improved Liveability).
Location limitations: Supply is thin outside capital cities and in regional centres, where demand is strong.
Support model barriers: Participants can’t always bring their familiar SIL provider into new SDA homes, disrupting continuity and outcomes.
Transition delays: Coordination, readiness, vacancies, and approvals rarely line up, slowing moves into SDA and creating hesitation amongst those who might otherwise ‘make the move.’
Lack of critical information for participants and their support networks, including about housing options, locations, benefits of SDA housing, rental costs (low), leasing arrangements (often for extended periods), and, on a more specific note, appropriately gentle reminders to parents and guardians that their adult child may not want to live within walking distance of their parents for the rest of their lives!
SIL Housing: demand rising, but not always SDA-linked
Demand for single-occupancy housing with robust-like features is growing, especially for participants with complex behavioural needs. Many don’t meet strict SDA eligibility, so they receive Supported Independent Living (SIL) in mainstream or community housing built with durable materials, secure layouts, and safety features—but not SDA-enrolled. SIL is a support, not a capital payment, and can be delivered in shared or single-occupancy dwellings. The rise in single-tenant SIL reflects participant preference and the need for safer, tailored environments, particularly for psychosocial disability or behaviours of concern.
Unmet housing demand in remote First Nations communities
Across remote and very remote regions, First Nations participants face severe unmet need. While SDA and SIL exist in principle, real supply, cultural appropriateness and service integration are lacking. Barriers include limited SDA stock, weak infrastructure for SIL delivery, and models misaligned with community expectations. Governments and the NDIA should codesign housing with local leaders and organisations, support community-controlled providers, and embed cultural safety and flexibility into standards and tenancy models.
What needs to change: market intervention & policy reform:
Any calls for “market intervention” and “policy reform” must be concrete. What follows are some pilot-ready options which may be worth considering. Yes, some of these fall into the ‘let’s go wild’ category, but I would argue all are better than telling ‘workshops’ comprised of first-time investors that the path to a comfortable retirement lies in investing in SDA and expecting 12 to 18 per cent returns – looking at you QLD white shoe brigade!):
Choice first separation: Enforce SDA/SIL separation and enable participant-led brokerage with portable tenancy rights to boost choice and reduce conflicts.
Mandated hospital & aged care exit pathways: Introduce strict discharge timelines (14–21 days post-clearance) with fast-track SDA/SIL approvals and temporary accessible housing to prevent long hospital stays. This saves costs and signals demand. Pilots could involve select hospital networks and aged care providers with shared dashboards and escalation protocols.
Design Standard 2.0: Update SDA standards for smart-home tech, energy resilience and low-carbon materials, rewarding designs that reduce SIL hours. Trial across 200 dwellings with lifecycle cost modelling.
Social procurement: Embed SDA/SIL targets in major government builds (every new estate for example), using weighted tender scores and enforceable milestones.
Regional accelerator: Offer rent guarantees and start-up grants in thin markets to attract investment and stabilise services.
Participant-led development: Support co-ops and Indigenous organisations to co-develop culturally sensitive SDA on community land with concessional finance.
Data-driven stewardship: Create a live SDA/SIL heatmap with dynamic incentives to align supply with demand.
Packaging the agenda: Frame reforms in three horizons—Immediate (retrofit blitz, discharge pathways), Medium-term (zoning, BTR SDA, procurement mandates), and Long-term (land value capture, SDA bonds, universal design). Governance would look like a joint taskforce and feature independent evaluation capturing avoided costs and quality-of-life gains.
So there’s a few ideas, and I’m sure many reading this article will have many others. Let’s not be shy about sharing!
From market failure to market transformation: the time to act is now (again!)
SDA and SIL can be cornerstones of independence in the NDIS, but without reform, thousands remain funded yet unhoused. Treat housing access as a system-wide challenge, not a market opportunity. With smart data, social procurement, and targeted interventions, we can transform market failure into market transformation. Now is the time to start.
And if your organisation needs strategic, governance or business advisory to navigate these challenges or design solutions, contact Management Governance Australia: