NDIS Minimum Support Shifts: Essential Info for Your Budget

Navigating NDIS Funding Changes: Why Every Hour Matters for Community Life

As someone who’s worked in the NDIS for eight years, I’ve seen firsthand how crucial every bit of support is for participants to live full, connected lives. That’s why I want to talk about some upcoming changes that could deeply affect how people access their communities, especially for Social, Civic, and Community Participation (SCCP).

From October 1, 2026, the Minister will have a new power to make “Support Determinations.” This means they can set limits on funding for specific types of support in NDIS plans. We’ve heard that the government intends to cut funding for SCCP by 50% and therapy budgets by 10% when plans are renewed or reassessed.

For many, the SCCP budget is their lifeline to the outside world. It helps participants get out for appointments, attend activities, build friendships, and simply be part of everyday life. A 50% cut isn’t just a reduction; for many, it could make the remaining funding practically unusable.

We’ve Seen This Challenge Before: The SCHADS Award

This isn’t the first time we’ve faced a situation where well-intentioned changes created unexpected problems for participants. Back in July 2022, the SCHADS Award, which sets employment conditions for many support workers, introduced a minimum two-hour shift for part-time and casual disability service employees.

This was a vital change for support workers, ensuring fair and predictable pay for their time, travel, and work. It meant workers weren’t expected to travel for a 30-minute or one-hour shift that didn’t properly compensate them.

However, this new minimum shift length created a big hurdle for many NDIS participants. I saw many plans where participants had only one, two, or three hours of support worker funding per week. With the two-hour minimum, a one-hour weekly allocation suddenly became impossible to use.

Even a two-hour allocation could be tricky if support was needed at different times or for more than one quick activity. It took the NDIA planners roughly two years to consistently understand that a practical minimum of two hours per week was essential for that funding to be delivered. This wasn’t a bonus; it was about making the funding usable in the real world.

The Same Problem, A New Face: Cuts to SCCP

Now, with the proposed 50% cuts to SCCP, we’re heading towards a very similar challenge. These cuts don’t just reduce critical funding; they risk creating unusable budgets all over again.

Imagine a participant who currently gets funding for two or three hours of support each week. This might be just enough for a support worker to help them go grocery shopping, attend a local group, get to an appointment, or simply leave the house safely. After a 50% cut, that participant would be left with funding for only one hour to 90 minutes per week.

This falls directly below the minimum shift requirements of the SCHADS Award. The predictable outcome is that while a participant might technically still have SCCP funding in their plan, they’ll struggle to find a provider or worker willing and able to deliver those tiny, irregular shifts. To me, that’s not choice and control; it’s funding that exists only on paper.

“Use It Less Often” Isn’t a Real Solution

I’ve heard suggestions that participants could just use their support less often, maybe once a fortnight or once a month. But in my experience, this isn’t a realistic solution for a few key reasons.

What it Means for Support Workers

Support workers rely on consistent hours and reliable income. It’s simply not sustainable for most to commit to a single two-hour shift once a fortnight or month, especially when considering travel time, transport costs, and the need to fill their rosters with regular work. This challenge becomes even greater in regional and remote areas where workers are already scarce.

What it Means for Providers

From a provider’s perspective, rostering staff for occasional two-hour shifts is incredibly difficult. We need to run a sustainable service. Often, participants with funding below a certain threshold—say, six hours per week—find it hard to secure services because it’s not financially viable for providers to consistently offer those minimal, infrequent hours.

What it Means for Participants

For participants, community participation thrives on routine, relationships, and reliability. Irregular support simply isn’t an equivalent replacement for regular help. A person might need weekly assistance to:

• Buy groceries and other essentials.
• Attend a consistent community activity.
• Maintain important friendships and family connections.
• Go to health or allied health appointments regularly.
• Build confidence using public spaces and transport.
• Prevent feelings of isolation, anxiety, and a decline in overall wellbeing.

One visit a month can’t genuinely replace four visits spread across a month. Even if a participant could find a support worker willing to commit to just one two-hour shift a month, the consistency and benefit just wouldn’t be there.

The Real Cost: Increased Isolation

The practical effect of reducing small budgets without a minimum safeguard is heartbreaking: it means people could be left permanently at home, completely disconnected from their community. This is especially worrying for individuals who live alone, have limited informal support networks, can’t use public transport independently, face communication barriers, or rely on a support worker to safely access everyday activities outside their home.

Social and community participation isn’t an optional extra; it’s how many people with disability exercise the same ordinary freedoms other Australians take for granted. It’s about seeing friends, going places, being part of their community, and having a life beyond their front door. A funding amount that can’t be turned into an actual support-worker shift isn’t participation funding at all.

We Need a Clear Minimum

Based on what I’ve seen, it’s clear that there needs to be a guaranteed minimum for Social and Community Participation funding – at least two hours per week – whenever these new Ministerial Support Determinations are applied. This shouldn’t depend on whether an individual planner understands the complexities of the SCHADS Award, local workforce availability, or the practical costs of arranging support.

We fought hard to establish the NDIS so that people with disability could live ordinary lives within their communities. We must make sure it doesn’t leave people with a tiny budget on paper but no realistic way to actually get out of their homes and participate.

Ultimately, funding only has value if it’s practical and usable. It’s about ensuring every participant has genuine choice and control over their supports. If you’re looking for support, I always encourage people to explore local NDIS providers who deeply understand these challenges and are committed to making your plan work for you.