Housing Accessibility for Disabled Populations

Have you ever had to repeatedly ask for help just to be able to enter a room? That’s a daily reality for millions of persons with disabilities. A non-functional lift, a missing ramp, a locked accessible entrance, a washroom too small for wheelchairs. These are not minor inconveniences. They are undignified signals that those spaces were never built for us. The Persons With Disabilities Act 2025 exists to end these exclusions through these provisions: Universally designed public spaces are now mandatory, where the National Council for Persons with Disabilities can issue an Adjustment Order for inaccessible buildings, with penalties of up to KES 5 million, 5 years in prison, or both for non-compliance. The safety of persons with disabilities in emergencies is guaranteed, requiring institutions to keep disability data and prioritise persons with disabilities in disaster responses. All government agencies constructing residential or commercial buildings must reserve at least 5% of those units for persons with disabilities. These units must be offered with interest-free terms and extended repayment periods to ensure affordability and access. Public and private institutions must follow accessibility standards in building design, ensuring accessible entry points, bathrooms, ramps, and transport facilities. Modifications must be made where necessary. Inclusion in Kenya is no longer an option! #VIP

📢 New resources now available for people sharing support and living in group homes Living in Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) or sharing support with others can be difficult — and finding clear, useful information shouldn’t be another challenge. Who does what? What are your rights? How do you raise concerns or give feedback when something doesn’t feel right? Summer Foundation Ltd has co-designed a set of practical resources to help make sense of it all — for NDIS participants, providers (housing and support), and supporters like family, friends, advocates and support coordinators. 🔍 These resources are designed to: ✅ Help NDIS participants understand their rights and take action when something isn’t okay ✅ Clarify roles and responsibilities in shared support settings ✅ Support providers to build a culture of two-way conversations and open communication ✅ Guide participants and providers to set up strong service agreements and tenant advisory committees Everyone deserves to feel safe, respected and heard in their own home. ✨ Explore the resources and hear from  our brilliant co-design contributors 👉 https://lnkd.in/gjE2Cise #NDIS #SDA  

This week's Property Matters podcast takes on an important and often overlooked subject – bias in customer service and the wider difficulties people with disabilities face in accessing housing, banking and insurance. Hosted by Gareth Wax and joined by Hamish McLay, the discussion will also feature Wendy Gibson from The First Time Buyers Club, along with Spencer, who has been looking closely at how bias creeps into the everyday systems that should support people rather than shut them out. Across housing in the UK, bias and inequality show up in many different forms. Social housing tenants often face the sharpest end of it, with long waiting lists, reduced choice, and at times poor-quality accommodation. For those with disabilities, the situation is even harder. Accessible homes are in short supply, and too many application processes still contain hurdles that make it difficult to secure the right support. It means the people most in need of stable, safe housing are often the ones forced to fight hardest to get it. The dangers become even starker when you look at high-rise living. The Grenfell tragedy remains a painful reminder of what happens when safety and accessibility are overlooked. A majority of those who died were people with disabilities, living in flats where escape routes were inadequate and support systems failed. The ongoing problems at Royal Artillery Quays show how this legacy continues today, with residents trapped in homes that feel unsafe and unsellable. These are not isolated stories, but symptoms of deeper systemic issues. Support in housing generally feels patchy. While some councils and housing associations go to great lengths to adapt homes or provide assistance, others fall behind. For many disabled tenants, the promise of 'reasonable adjustments' often translates to long waits and partial solutions. Combined with the pressures of rising rents and a shortage of new social housing, it creates an environment where those already disadvantaged face even greater challenges. The property sector cannot ignore these realities. Bias isn’t only found in banking forms or insurance applications; it is written into the bricks and mortar of where and how people live. Until access, safety, and equality become central to housing policy and delivery, the same groups will continue to shoulder the greatest risks. Join us on Tuesday 26th August at 1pm for Property Matters, live on LinkedIn and YouTube. With Gareth, Hamish, Wendy Gibson and Spencer, the conversation will be a chance to shine a light on the changes needed across housing, banking and insurance to ensure no one is left behind. Never miss an episode of Spilling the Proper-Tea again, subscribe to our YouTube Channel to catch or watch live: https://lnkd.in/ex6FgCG8

"How to Fix the SDA" Following the Four Corners, we now all understand that the Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) program is a problem that needs to be addressed. I propose a four-step process set squarely within the mandate of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) as the market steward. Step One: Acknowledge SDA program failure and its cause A housing program designed to increase the number of people housed, but instead reduces the number over seven+ years is a failure. And no, you cannot claim the reduced expenditure as a saving: it is simply cost shifting into less efficient settings, albeit many not within the NDIS frame. Central to this program failure is a fundamental misclassification of SDA as a general housing product. Its scarcity, complexity, inflexibility of demand and impact on other things, such as support efficiency, mean it is infrastructure. Once that is acknowledged, the way forward becomes more apparent. Step Two: Simplify design categories to High Physical and Robust Reducing the design categories to High Physical and Robust will maximise flexibility and utilisation. This will incur a relatively modest additional cost over the life of the housing and in the context of support resources deployed. As Robust is required to respond to complex issues, it is best approached as a bespoke program where housing is matched to the needs and requirements of each person. Step Three: Define the location and configuration of the required SDA The location of the required SDA can and should be broadly defined in terms of underlying demand, required configurations, proximately to support solutions and access to community and transport. Government, in this case, the NDIA, can identify where people in SDA want to and can sustainably live. That is how infrastructure is done. Step Four: Tender in partnership with State Governments A tender seeking consortia with diverse expertise and capacities for SDA finance, development and management would generate significant competitive interest from the market. Framing a series of tenders focused on different regions (ABS SA4s) would spread development over a realistic timeframe. Partnering with the State Government would address the redevelopment issues of their SDA portfolios and cement partnerships with the States as they address non-SDA housing issues. There is already significant expertise within the Federal Government, through Housing Australia, to administer such a tender approach. This may not be a perfect plan, but it is a good place to start the conversation on "How to Fix the SDA".  

Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) under #NDIS has been structured primarily as an investment vehicle that guarantees stable, long-term returns for asset managers, superannuation funds, & institutional investors—rather than being centered on participant rights, independence, & genuine choice. A System Designed for Financial Gain, Not Participant Well-being. From the SDA reports, funding structures, & data models, we can clearly see that the primary objective of #SDA is to create lucrative revenue streams for investors, not to maximize autonomy & quality of life for people with disabilities. 1. SDA Pricing is Structured for Investor Confidence, Not Participant Need - SDA payments are locked in long-term, making them a secure investment product. - Reports by EY, NDIA, and government agencies show that pricing is set to attract institutional capital rather than directly addressing accessibility gaps. - High vacancy rates are tolerated because the return-on-investment (ROI) model prioritizes financial #stability over immediate participant placement. What This Means for Participants 🚩 SDA supply is dictated by investor risk appetite, not participant needs. 🚩 Participants cannot freely choose their housing because the SDA #market is structured around what investors will fund. 🚩 SDA pricing models favor large corporate-backed developments over individualized solutions. 2. Superannuation & #Asset Managers Have Taken Over Disability Housing - AustralianSuper, HESTA, and other major super funds are major stakeholders in SDA developments. - SDA investments are structured to be "low-risk" with guaranteed government-backed payments, making them attractive to pension funds & institutional capital. - Government policy is designed to make SDA a viable, long-term asset class for private capital, ensuring continued investment flow. What This Means for Participants 🚩 SDA is being financialized, meaning investors—not disabled people—determine the type & location of housing. 🚩 Super funds are benefiting from government-backed #disability payments, while participants face bureaucratic hurdles to access housing. 🚩 Rather than funding accessible public housing, the government is #subsidizing private investors through SDA payments. 3. SDA Design is About Profit Maximization, Not Accessibility & Independence - SDA properties must meet specific NDIA design requirements, but these are geared towards #investor feasibility rather than individual participant choice. - NDIA prefers large-scale SDA developments over smaller, participant-controlled housing models because they are more financially attractive to investors. - Reports suggest that the majority of SDA development approvals are for "High Physical Support" properties, not customized housing that meets actual participant needs.

I can usually tell pretty quickly whether a disability system was built for real life or just check boxes.   It becomes clear when people with disabilities achieve stability through long-term services and support. They qualify for care, build routines, and secure housing, healthcare, and employment.    But then a very ordinary life change occurs: they move for school, work, healthcare, family, or safety.   Nothing about their disability changes and their support needs remain the same. The only thing that changes is their address.   At that point, services disappear. People are required to reapply, reprove eligibility, and/or reenter waitlists that can take years to move up. Some people are denied entirely because eligibility rules differ by zip code, county, or state. It causes a complete loss of continuity for the same person with the same needs.   Disability policy frequently emphasizes independence, employment, and community living for people with disabilities. Many existing systems require people to remain geographically fixed in order to maintain stability.   The Americans with Disabilities Act established access at a specific point in time, but disability support portability focuses on access across time. It reflects the reality that people with disabilities grow, move, change jobs, form families, and experience life transitions. Access that disappears during transitions does not function as lasting access.   It is not equitable when: • Non-disabled people can relocate without losing healthcare or essential supports • People with disabilities are required to choose between opportunity and care • Families are required to restart processes because services stop at zip code, county, or state lines   Disability support portability centers continuity by keeping support systems intact as people move through different stages of life. Stability should follow the person, not location.   When support follows the person, • People are more likely to remain employed and housed • Preventable health crises decrease • Systems spend less time responding to disruptions in care   Access across time is what allows access to work in practice.   People with disabilities should be able to move forward without losing the support that made success and progress possible.   #DisabilityPolicy #DisabilitySupport #SystemsChange #HealthPolicy #Inclusion #NothingMadeForUsWithoutUs Image Description: A winding road curves through green rolling hills toward the horizon at sunrise. Soft golden light spreads across the landscape beneath a partly cloudy sky. Text across the image reads “Design systems for the long road.”

Home Adaptations, Health Outcomes: Why Disabled Facilities Grants Matter. A Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) is a mandatory grant (subject to eligibility) provided by local authorities in England and Wales (and by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland) to fund essential home adaptations. The purpose is to give disabled people better freedom of movement into and around their homes, and access to essential facilities within the home. DFGs are generally means-tested and subject to an upper limit. Scotland operates a different scheme of assistance rather than issuing DFGs. (p. 4) A House of Commons Library briefing, Disabled facilities grants (DFGs) for home adaptations (9 April 2023), summarises both the statutory framework and recurring delivery pressure points. (pp. 7–11, 17–18, 26, 33) In England and Wales, before approving a DFG the local housing authority must be satisfied the works are “necessary and appropriate” for the disabled person, and “reasonable and practicable” for the property. A decision on a properly completed application must be issued within six months. (p. 8) DFGs are generally means-tested and capped (England: £30,000). In England, the means test does not apply where an application is made by the parent/guardian of a disabled child or young person. (pp. 4, 10–11) The briefing also summarises evidence on unmet need: English Housing Survey data suggests many households who require adaptations lack one or more of the adaptations they need, and some report that cost is a barrier. (pp. 17–18) Parliamentary evidence has highlighted long waits and process friction, alongside concerns about whether the cap is sufficient for substantial works and challenges in the private rented sector. (p. 26) Scotland is worth noting for comparison: assistance for homeowners can cover 80% of costs (and 100% in some cases), with no upper cost limit, subject to reasonableness checks. (p. 33) Finally, NIHR’s Policy Research Programme has commissioned a major evaluation of DFGs in England (PRP 43-03; £3m), focusing on delivery, outcomes and value for money. https://lnkd.in/ewSswZsQ This is a neutral summary. Sean Kennedy #DisabledFacilitiesGrant #HomeAdaptations #AccessibleHousing #Disability #OccupationalTherapy #SocialCare #LocalGovernment #HousingPolicy Mandy Aulak Talem Law

Tiny home villages are currently Canada's most popular housing response. They are also a spectacular failure of social policy dressed up as compassion. I have been studying this trend through the lens of behavioural economics, disability rights law, and the hard cost data. I put together a short presentation breaking down what we are actually building when we build these compounds. The core problem is what Rory Sutherland would call "psycho-logic." When poverty becomes visible on our streets, the housed public craves visual order. A neat grid of cabins behind a fence soothes that anxiety. It packages a crisis into something tidy and photogenic. Politicians suffer from tangibility bias: you can bolt a corporate plaque to a cabin wall and cut a ribbon in front of a gate. You cannot photograph a portable rent supplement. So we fund the thing that makes the giver feel better, not the thing that actually works. And the data is damning: -Setup costs run roughly $99,000 per unit with $29,000 in annual operating costs (Greene et al., 2025). -A 2026 scoping review of 116 publications found zero empirical evidence that these villages improve long-term health or housing outcomes compared to other interventions (Marshall et al., 2026). We are scaling an experiment, not a solution. It gets worse. Operators routinely use "program participant" or "licensee" agreements to sidestep the Residential Tenancies Act. Residents have no eviction protections, no hearings, no recourse. The landlord and the support worker collapse into a single entity. If you clash with your caseworker, you lose your roof. That is not care. That is control. The UN CRPD Guidelines are explicit: an institution is not defined by the square footage of its roof. It is defined by isolation, segregation, and lack of control. A tiny home village is an institution broken into smaller pieces. And if municipalities need a financial reason to care about that distinction, they should look at what just happened in Nova Scotia. The province agreed to a $34 million class-action settlement for segregating people with disabilities (Disability Rights Coalition v. Nova Scotia, 2021 NSCA 70). Every gated compound we fund today is concrete being poured for the lawsuits of 2035. We already know what works. The Canadian gold standard is At Home / Chez Soi: scattered-site private apartments, portable rent supplements that belong to the person, and decoupled mobile support teams. It is boring. It is invisible. And it has the evidence base that tiny homes do not. Safety without autonomy is just custody. Swipe through the presentation below. I would genuinely like to hear from people working in housing, municipal planning, and legal advocacy on this. Are we building solutions, or are we just organizing the visible symptoms of poverty? - - - #HousingPolicy #HousingFirst #HumanRights #PublicPolicy #DisabilityRights #HousingCrisis