Children with disabilities face disadvantage in health, participation, and development. In Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is the main funding mechanism for disability supports and explicitly aspires to deliver equity. However, it remains unclear whether this ambition is being realised for children with disabilities. This study provides the first systematic evidence on vertical and horizontal equity in NDIS support for children with disabilities, assessing whether resources are distributed according to need (vertical equity) and whether children with similar needs receive equivalent support regardless of social background (horizontal equity).
Using data from 688 parents of children with disabilities aged 2-17 years, the study examined whether the child had a NDIS plan, the value of NDIS funding, and parents’ satisfaction with NDIS supports. Children with greater functional limitations were much more likely to have a NDIS plan and received higher funding, indicating resources are directed to higher-need children consistent with vertical equity. However, parents of children with greater functional limitations reported lower satisfaction, suggesting that higher funding may not fully meet complex needs. After accounting for need, few systematic differences were found in access or funding by socioeconomic, cultural, or regional factors, suggesting generally equitable allocation. However, families with fewer financial resources or with an adult with disability reported lower satisfaction, and older children received lower funding and had lower participation than younger children.
The findings suggest that while the NDIS achieves partial vertical and horizontal equity, equity gaps remain in families’ experiences and outcomes. Ensuring that higher funding translates into adequate, accessible, and high-quality support requires attention to administrative burden, service availability, and families’ capacity to navigate the system. The lower satisfaction of families with fewer resources or adult disability highlights a need to strengthen outreach, support coordination, and advocacy for disadvantaged households. Age disparities underline the importance of seamless pathways between early intervention and ongoing support. As policy shifts toward the new Thriving Kids framework, these results underscore the need to design systems that reduce inequities not only in access and funding but also in the ability of all families to convert resources into effective support for their children.