Tomorrow marks the end of FY 25-26.
Across organisations everywhere, this week will be spent sitting with two questions: what did we spend, and what did we deliver? Finance teams will reconcile the books. Executives will look at outcomes against KPIs. Boards will receive end-of-year reports. The cycle of accounting for the year that’s been is in full swing.
For disability inclusion, most organisations can answer the first question precisely. The expenditure is recorded. The training budget, accessibility upgrades, consultation engagement, and community partnership — all have line items, invoices, and reports. The numbers are there.
The second question is much harder.
What changed because of what you spent?
This is the question that disability inclusion work struggles to answer at EOFY. Not because the work didn’t happen, and not because the work didn’t matter — but because the work was usually funded as an activity, not as outcomes.
Consider what most organisations can report at the end of the financial year about their disability inclusion spending:
They can report how many people attended the disability awareness training. They can report that the accessibility audit was completed. They can report that the community consultation took place. They can report that the DIAP launched on schedule, that the partnership was renewed, that the accessibility upgrades were installed, and that the lived experience contributors were paid.
All of these are activity reports. They tell you what happened. They don’t tell you what changed.
Did the training shift behaviour? Did the audit result in actions being completed? Did the consultation lead to changes in service design? Is the DIAP being implemented, or is it sitting on the shared drive while staff have moved on to the next priority? Are the accessibility upgrades being used? Are the community partnerships producing the relationships and outcomes they were intended to produce?
Most organisations cannot answer these questions in any structured way at EOFY. Not because they don’t care, but because the disability inclusion work was never set up to be measurable in terms of outcomes. It was set up to be measurable in terms of inputs and activity. So at the end of the year, the inputs and the activity are what get reported.
This isn’t a values failure. It’s a structural one.
Organisations that struggle to report inclusion outcomes at EOFY are not, in most cases, organisations that don’t take disability inclusion seriously. They are usually organisations whose inclusion work was funded and structured in ways that don’t generate the data they would now need to demonstrate impact.
This is a structural problem with a structural solution. It happens when disability inclusion work is set up as a series of discrete activities (run the training, do the audit, host the consultation) rather than as a programme of change with measurable indicators.
It also happens when disability inclusion accountability sits with one person or a small team rather than being embedded into organisational reporting structures. The inclusion lead, often holding too much with too few resources, doesn’t have the time or mandate to track outcome data throughout the year. So when EOFY arrives, what gets reported is what’s easy to count — the events, the participants, the spend.
And it happens when there’s no agreed framework for what “success” in disability inclusion looks like in the organisation. Without a clear definition of the change being pursued, there’s no clear basis for reporting against it.
Three things a healthy disability inclusion program should be able to report
If your organisation’s disability inclusion work is operating well, here are three things you should be able to report at EOFY without scrambling for data.
The first is operational change. Not just “we ran the training” but “following the training, we changed [a specific policy, process, system, or behaviour].” If the training didn’t lead to operational change, the training was an event, not an investment.
The second is structural integration. Not just “we have a DIAP” but “the DIAP has been incorporated into [specific operational documents, decision-making processes, reporting frameworks, budget cycles].” If the DIAP exists but doesn’t appear in operational planning, it’s a document, not a strategy.
The third is participant outcomes. Not just “we paid X people for lived experience contribution” but “the contributions led to [specific changes in service, policy, or design].” If the consultation didn’t lead to identifiable change, the consultation was extractive, not generative.
Most organisations cannot produce these three answers in any structured form. That’s the gap. That’s also where the work for the new financial year needs to begin.
Why FY 26-27 won’t be different by accident
Here is the harder truth that EOFY surfaces, but most organisations don’t want to sit with: most organisations will plan FY 26-27 disability inclusion the same way they planned FY 25-26. Same structure, same funding model, same activities, same reporting. And then they will wonder, this time next year, why the results haven’t shifted.
The results don’t shift because the structure hasn’t shifted.
Continuing to fund disability inclusion as a series of activities will keep producing activities, not outcomes.
Continuing to hold disability inclusion accountability with one person or a small team will continue to produce isolated effort, not embedded change.
Continuing to define success vaguely will yield vague results.
If FY 26-27 is going to be different — actually different, not just hopefully different — something specific has to change about how the work is structured, funded, accounted for, and held.
Two questions for your planning conversations this week
Whether you are an inclusion lead, an executive, a board member, or someone holding inclusion responsibilities alongside other work, two questions are worth carrying into your FY 26-27 planning conversations.
The first: when we look back this time next year on the disability inclusion spending we are about to commit, what specifically do we want to be able to report? Not what we hope will happen. What we will commit to measuring and reporting. Get specific now, while the planning is still open.
The second: what would need to change in our structures, our funding models, our reporting frameworks, and our accountability for that to actually be reportable in twelve months? Identify the structural conditions, not just the activities. Because without the structural conditions, the activities will continue to produce reports of activity rather than evidence of change.
The new financial year is the time to plan. The structures get locked in over the next two to three months. After that, they shape what’s possible for another twelve months.
If you’ve spent this last week reconciling what FY 25-26 delivered, that’s the right time to be asking what FY 26-27 needs to be set up to deliver differently.
More on that, starting next week.
