By the National Employment Services Association (NESA) | May 2026
The central policy question in Australia’s supported employment debate may not be whether supported employment settings should continue to exist. It may be whether Australians with disability currently have enough information, support, alternatives and safeguards for any employment decision to be genuinely free and informed.
That is the framing at the heart of NESA’s latest analysis of disability employment policy: a paper examining one of the most contested questions in Australian disability employment: what would genuine employment choice actually look like for people with intellectual disability and high or complex support needs?
NDIA data shows that only 3.1% of younger supported employees and 1% of adults have moved from Australian Disability Enterprise (ADE) settings to open employment. NESA’s analysis of the evidence suggests this is less a reflection of aspiration or individual capability, and more a reflection of how Australia’s disability employment systems currently operate. These are structural outcomes, shaped by program design, funding gaps, and missing safeguards.
Focusing on the approximately 16,000 Australians with intellectual disability and high or complex support needs who work, or have worked, in ADE settings or the organisations that have since evolved from them, NESA’s review maps the available evidence, identifies what has and has not worked internationally and domestically, and outlines realistic reform options across the Inclusive Employment Australia (IEA) program and the NDIS.
The timing of this analysis is deliberate. Several significant developments are converging.
Inclusive Employment Australia (IEA) replaced Disability Employment Services (DES) in November 2025, bringing expanded eligibility, the removal of the two-year engagement time limit, and a new intensive service stream. It has been operating for just over six months. Its design intentions are sound; whether they translate into better outcomes for people with the highest support needs is not yet known.
The Australian Government committed $52.7 million to the supported employment sector in its July 2024 response to the Disability Royal Commission but placed the 2034 ADE phase-out recommendation under further consideration. A public consultation on the future of supported employment conducted by the Department of Social Services between March and June 2025 has not yet published its findings.
The National Disability Data Asset (NDDA), which became available to researchers in December 2024, holds linked administrative data relevant to this cohort but has not yet produced the sector-specific outcome reporting the system needs. Meanwhile, the next Royal Commission progress report is expected in November 2026.
Reform intent is present. The evidence base is available. What remains is translation into deliberate, funded action. NESA’s analysis is a contribution to that conversation.
Since the ADE Services program formally ceased in March 2021, the sector has changed considerably on the surface. Former ADE organisations have rebranded as social enterprises, business enterprises, or retained the ADE label, but without any consistent national reporting framework. By 2022, only 43% of providers still clearly identified as ADEs.
The supported employees within these organisations, people with intellectual disability and high support needs, have not changed with it. Their need for employment support is the same. What has changed is how visible they are to policymakers and the public.
The last dedicated national data collection tracking wages, hours, and transition rates across this sector ceased in 2019. NESA’s review of the evidence identifies this data gap as a first-order policy problem, not a technical footnote. The risk that social enterprise rebranding has simply replicated ADE conditions under a different name cannot currently be assessed. This is not a reason to dismiss the social enterprise model; it is a reason to treat the absence of outcome data as requiring direct policy action.
One partial exception is worth noting. The NDIS now publishes quarterly Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) demand data, which as at December 2024 identified 24,522 NDIS participants with an SDA need, people defined by extreme functional impairment or very high support needs, and the group most likely to overlap with the ADE cohort. That data is available at state, territory, and SA3 level, and it tells us where these people live and what housing support they need. What it does not tell us, because it has not been linked to employment reporting, is anything about their employment status, wages, or engagement with SLES or IEA. That linkage is exactly what the National Disability Data Asset is positioned to provide, and exactly what has not yet been done.
The findings raise important questions about whether what looks like sector evolution is, in practice, simply old problems operating under new names.
The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability documented serious harm: workers paid as little as $2.37 per hour, and a predictable pathway from segregated schooling into supported employment without genuine alternatives. (As at 9 June 2026 the rate was $3.12 per hour). Four of six Commissioners recommended phasing out ADEs by 2034. The Chair and one Commissioner disagreed, arguing that freely chosen supported employment is not inherently harmful.
What is striking is how much common ground exists across those positions. All six Commissioners agreed on the need for fair wages, genuine choice, and improved transition pathways. The disagreement is really about whether the current system creates the conditions for genuine choice to exist at all.
NESA’s analysis suggests that it does not. Not yet. Information is limited, alternatives are underdeveloped, transition risks are largely unmitigated, and the data needed to assess whether reform is working is not yet available. Rather than asking whether supported employment settings should continue to exist, a more productive question is: what conditions would need to hold for participation in any employment setting, whether supported or open, to reflect a genuinely free and informed decision?
Understanding why transition rates remain so low requires looking beyond individual capacity. NESA’s review of the evidence points to a cluster of structural and system-level barriers.
Fear of losing the Disability Support Pension (DSP), and the complexity of suspension and reinstatement rules, is one of the most consistently documented barriers across participant, family, and provider groups. NESA’s analysis of the evidence suggests the primary constraint is the complexity of the rules themselves, not a lack of information about them. Simplification of the rules would be a more effective intervention than information campaigns alone.
Two systems, operating under different departments with different funding logic and accountability frameworks, are expected to complement each other in practice without being designed to do so. A person with high support needs may simultaneously require NDIS-funded job coaching and IEA-funded employer engagement, with no shared planning mechanism between the two.
When an open employment attempt does not succeed, what happens? NESA’s review of the evidence found that no managed re-entry protocol currently exists in Australian policy or program design. Where transition is perceived as irreversible, the rational response for many families is to stay. This absence of a clear return pathway is itself a structural barrier to attempting transition in the first place.
For many people in ADE settings, workplace relationships are a primary source of meaning and community connection. The social cost of leaving, losing established friendships, disrupting routine, and rebuilding connections elsewhere, is a rational and well-documented barrier, distinct from financial concerns. Reform must actively plan to protect social wellbeing during transition, not assume that employment placement alone equates to a successful outcome.
NESA’s review focuses specifically on models with evidence for people with intellectual disability and high support needs, a distinct cohort from those most studied in the general employment services literature. Several approaches stand out.
Project SEARCH is a one-year, workplace-based transition program developed in the United States for young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in their final year of school eligibility. Participants undertake three rotating internships within a single host business, supported by an onsite team. Competitive employment rates for graduates range from 46% to 67%, compared with 12% to 17% for comparison groups receiving standard transition support. NESA’s review identifies Project SEARCH as having one of the strongest international evidence bases of any program targeting this cohort. It has been piloted in Australia but has not been taken to national scale. The gap between what this model achieves internationally and what Australian transition programs achieve for this cohort is one of the most directly evidence-supported opportunities for investment currently available.
Customised Employment was developed specifically for people who do not fit standard job-matching approaches. Its defining feature is an intensive Discovery process, an observation-based exploration of a person’s skills and interests conducted in their home and community, leading to a tailored role negotiated with an employer around that individual’s specific contribution. The first randomised controlled trial of Customised Employment with transition-age young people with intellectual disability found significantly better competitive employment outcomes compared with standard support. The practical limitation is structural: it requires a trained specialist workforce not yet available at scale in Australia, and current NDIS pricing does not adequately fund the Discovery phase. These are addressable funding and workforce design problems.
A 2025 systematic review of programs supporting competitive employment outcomes for young people with intellectual disability identified four characteristics consistently present in effective programs: early career planning beginning in secondary school; direct work exposure in real workplaces; post-secondary education and certification opportunities; and on-the-job training with fading support. Classroom-only pre-vocational training has limited evidence of effectiveness for this cohort as a route to open employment. These findings have direct implications for the current design of School Leaver Employment Supports (SLES) in Australia, and NESA’s analysis suggests current SLES design warrants substantive reform.
NESA’s analysis identifies several structural barriers that persist despite reform intent. The interaction between the Disability Support Pension and employment attempts remains complex and poorly understood by participants and families. The coordination gap between the NDIS and IEA creates friction at precisely the moment when people need seamless support. School Leaver Employment Supports remain too heavily weighted toward classroom-based preparation, despite evidence favouring real-workplace exposure. And the supported wage system, which permits wages far below community standards, remains a fundamental rights issue the Royal Commission addressed unanimously.
Perhaps the most underappreciated barrier is the absence of re-entry pathways. Where families and participants perceive the decision to attempt open employment as difficult or impossible to reverse, many will rationally choose not to try. Building transition safeguards, gradual pathways, hybrid arrangements, and clear re-entry options, into program design from the outset would materially change that calculus.
NESA’s analysis does not take a position on whether ADE-equivalent settings should continue to exist. It takes the view that this is the wrong question. The right question is what conditions would need to hold for participation in any setting to reflect genuine, free, and informed choice.
For some people, a supported employment setting represents meaningful and freely chosen work. The evidence for that is real. But the current system, where information is limited, alternatives are underdeveloped, and transition risks are unmitigated, does not yet meet the standard required for that choice to be genuinely free. Investment in alternatives is what transforms information into real choice.
The concern NESA’s analysis raises about the social enterprise rebranding wave is pointed: without sector-specific outcome reporting, we cannot assess whether the transition from ADE to social enterprise has changed anything for supported employees. That is a data and accountability gap requiring direct government action, not further review.
The NDIS provides the foundational supports that make employment possible for many people in this cohort: job coaching, assistive technology, School Leaver Employment Supports (SLES), and ongoing supports in employment. These are significant investments. NESA’s analysis identifies several ways they could work better.
The Discovery process at the centre of Customised Employment is not currently adequately priced within the NDIS. Recognising it as a distinct support item would be a practical prerequisite to Customised Employment operating at meaningful scale. SLES needs to shift significantly toward workplace-based preparation, consistent with what the systematic evidence supports. And the DSP interaction requires simplification of the rules themselves, not just better information about existing complexity.
A joint NDIS and IEA planning mechanism, a shared employment goal agreed at plan review and accessible to Local Area Coordinators, support coordinators, and IEA providers, would reduce the structural friction that currently sits between two systems expected to complement each other without being designed to do so. NESA’s analysis identifies this as achievable without legislative change; what it requires is funded coordination infrastructure and a shared outcome framework.
The evidence raises a number of questions worth sitting with carefully as governments, providers, and communities consider the future of this system.
What is supported employment in Australia? Supported employment refers to employment arrangements specifically designed for people with disability who require ongoing support to participate in work. In Australia, this has historically been provided through Australian Disability Enterprise settings. Since 2021, many former ADEs have rebranded as social enterprises or business enterprises, though without consistent national outcome reporting.
What is Inclusive Employment Australia (IEA)? Inclusive Employment Australia replaced Disability Employment Services in November 2025. It expanded eligibility, removed the previous two-year engagement time limit, and introduced an intensive service stream for people who are not yet work-ready. It is the Australian Government’s primary program for supporting people with disability into open employment.
What is Project SEARCH and does it work? Project SEARCH is a one-year, workplace-based transition program for young people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Evidence from more than 500 international sites shows competitive employment rates of 46% to 67% for graduates, compared with 12% to 17% for those receiving standard transition support. It has been piloted in Australia but not implemented at national scale.
What are the main barriers to open employment for people with intellectual disability? NESA’s analysis identifies structural and system-level barriers including the complexity of Disability Support Pension interaction, the coordination gap between NDIS and IEA, the absence of re-entry pathways when employment attempts do not succeed, underdeveloped alternatives, and limited sector-specific outcome data. Family concerns about safety, income, and social connection also play a significant role.
What is the supported wage system? The Supported Wage System (SWS) permits wages in ADE and supported employment settings to be set below the minimum wage, based on a productivity assessment of the individual worker. Under the Supported Employment Services Award, the current minimum rate from 1 July 2025 is $7.10 per hour for Grade A employees, with a trial period minimum of $3.12 per hour. All six Royal Commissioners recommended wages be lifted to at least 50% of the national minimum wage as a first step, with a pathway to full award wages by 2034. The Australian Government has not yet accepted this recommendation in full and further consultation is underway.
The future of supported employment in Australia will not be determined by labels such as ADE, social enterprise, or open employment. It will be determined by whether people with disability have genuine options, meaningful support, fair wages, and real opportunities to choose the employment pathway that is right for them.
NESA’s analysis draws on existing evidence, existing Australian pilots, and existing program architecture. The reforms it identifies are not speculative. What they require is deliberate investment, clear accountability, and a genuine commitment to building alternatives before removing the options that, however imperfect, currently serve as the primary source of employment and social connection for many of Australia’s most underserved workers.
The full paper explores these findings in greater detail, including an examination of international evidence, a section-by-section analysis of reform options within IEA and NDIS, and eight specific recommendations for government and the sector. We encourage readers to access the complete paper on the NESA website.
NESA will continue contributing evidence, policy analysis and practical reform options to support that conversation. NESA is Australia’s peak body for the employment services sector, bringing together providers, employers, researchers and communities in support of evidence-based policy and better outcomes for Australians seeking work.