The number of children and youth diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has increased two to fourfold in just 15 years across OECD countries. Current evidence suggests that this is largely due to an increase in the detection and diagnosis of ASD, not in the underlying autism prevalence. The increase in ASD diagnoses has the potential to improve social, health and education outcomes for many young people, but has led to more demand for support, including for disability payments and specialised healthcare services. This report looks at benefits and services available in 11 OECD countries for children diagnosed with ASD. It finds large differences across countries in the level of support offered to different groups but also a general strong shift towards basing entitlement for support on the needs of individuals rather than just their diagnosis.
Policy Responses to Rising Autism Diagnoses in Childhood
Abstract
Executive summary
Across all OECD countries reviewed in this report, the rate of ASD detection in children has risen sharply over the past decade. While prevalence estimates differ depending on data sources available, the trend is unambiguous: most countries have experienced average annual increases of 6‑10%. This rapid increase reflects several factors: evolving diagnostic criteria, expanding awareness of autism, reduced stigma, earlier developmental surveillance, and broader interpretations of what constitutes the autism spectrum. As a result, demand for diagnostic assessments has grown in many countries and, in some cases, has been accompanied by rising demand for financial support and specialised services, particularly early childhood interventions and tailored educational provision.
Capacity in public diagnostic systems has not always kept pace with rising demand. Many countries report long waiting times for public diagnoses and a shortage of trained professionals. Moreover, evidence consistently shows that diagnostic systems tend to favour families with higher levels of health literacy, language proficiency and resources to navigate complex pathways. In several countries (e.g. Australia, France, Israel, the United Kingdom), waiting times and staffing shortages have driven families towards private assessments, raising concerns about accessibility and consistency. Furthermore, disparities in diagnosis rates persist across sex, socio‑economic and ethnic groups: girls and women often present differently and may remain undiagnosed for longer; and children from disadvantaged families or minority backgrounds may face barriers to assessment. These inequalities highlight the importance of structured, high‑quality and equitable diagnostic pathways.
International diagnostic frameworks have undergone major transformations in recent decades. The consolidation of various pervasive developmental disorder subtypes into a single autism spectrum disorder category under DSM‑5 and ICD‑11 has broadened eligibility for diagnosis and standardised criteria across countries. These changes enable diagnosis even when symptoms become apparent later, recognise a wide range of presentations, and allow classification of different severity levels.
Diagnostic practice is now more multi-disciplinary, commonly involving developmental paediatricians, psychologists, speech‑language therapists and other specialists. Standardised tools, such as ADOS‑2, ADI‑R, M‑CHAT and 3di, enhance reliability, while diagnosis from around age two is widely considered stable when undertaken by experienced clinicians. Emerging technologies, including machine‑learning tools for behavioural analysis, show promise in supporting clinical judgement, though they are not yet substitutes for professional assessment.
Across the countries studied, financial support for families of children with ASD is provided through three main types of benefits:
Carer allowances, recognising the reduced labour‑market participation and increased caregiving responsibilities of parents.
Disabled child allowances, providing child‑centred income support to ensure adequate living standards and social inclusion.
Additional cost allowances, covering disability‑related expenses such as therapies, equipment and home adaptations.
Eligibility criteria can differ across countries. In almost all OECD countries reviewed, benefits depend on an assessment of support needs rather than diagnosis alone. The clear exceptions are Israel, where an ASD diagnosis automatically confers eligibility for the Disabled Child Allowance, and to some extent Australia, where the Carer Allowance can also be triggered by an ASD diagnosis alone (see case studies for details). Most other systems require a functioning assessment, documentation of care needs or evidence of additional costs.
Benefit levels vary substantially across countries. Countries such as Denmark and Sweden provide relatively high‑value supports for children with severe care needs. Others provide more modest benefits, particularly where supports are means‑tested. In most countries, children with mild support needs would typically not receive any disability‑related allowance, making Israel’s automatic benefit entitlement for all children diagnosed with ASD a notable exception.
Financial support policies also influence parental employment patterns. Non‑means‑tested, flat‑rate payments may unintentionally disincentivise employment for lower‑income families, while insufficient support may compel parents to remain in employment while simultaneously lacking sufficient resources to secure external caregiving support for their child. Designing benefit systems that both safeguard family income, support labour market participation, and ensure adequate care and support for the child therefore remains a persistent policy challenge.
Service provision for children with ASD spans three principal systems: education, health and social services. Most countries aim to tailor supports to children’s assessed needs. These may include:
Paramedical therapies (speech, occupational and psychotherapy);
Individualised educational support (teaching assistants, assistive technology, adapted curricula);
Early childhood programmes targeting developmental delays;
Social support such as respite care, transport assistance, parent training or after‑school programmes.
A key distinction across systems lies in how entitlements are allocated. In most OECD countries, needs‑based allocation dominates. Therapy intensity, placement in mainstream versus special education and access to social services typically depend on a multi-disciplinary assessment rather than a diagnostic category.
Israel again stands out among the countries reviewed. Therapy hours in special education settings are standardised by diagnosis rather than individual need (e.g. a fixed number of weekly hours for all children with ASD). This simplicity facilitates planning and ensures a predictable baseline of support, but risks undermining equity: children with mild support needs may receive more services than necessary, while those with more complex needs may not receive enough.
Differences in how support is allocated are also reflected in enrolment patterns. Countries show considerable variation in the proportions of students with special educational needs (SEN) enrolled in mainstream classes, special classes, or special schools, depending on the inclusiveness of their education systems and the supports available in regular settings. While most European countries enrol children with SEN in mainstream schools predominantly, children with ASD in countries like Israel and Australia are notably more likely to be educated in special education settings.
