A Portfolio Analysis of Autism Research Funding in Australia, 2008-2017.

den Houting et al. (2019) counted every autism research grant in Australia from 2008 to 2017. They sorted each project into topics like basic biology, early detection, or services for adults. The goal was to see if the money matched what Australian autistic people and families said they needed.

Most dollars still went to lab and genetics work, but the share dropped after 2013. Funds for community priorities—adult services, mental health, police training—grew slowly. The shift is real, yet small; biomedical projects still dominate the budget.

Singh et al. (2009) saw the same pattern in the U.S. a decade earlier: basic-science grants fell while clinical and translational work rose. The Australian data extend their story to a new country and time frame.

Tromans et al. (2018) add detail. They scanned 529 autism trials from the same 2008-2017 window and found most were tiny. The funding audit and the trial survey together show that even as money moved toward community needs, the studies stayed small.

Huang et al. (2022) update the picture. They asked Australian adults about diagnosis paths and heard long waits and high costs. Their results echo the funding audit: adult services remain under-built despite the recent cash shift.

If you write grants or advise families, use these numbers. Point out that adult service projects still win less money than lab work. When you pitch a job-skills or mental-health study, frame it as filling the gap the audit exposes. The data give you leverage with funders and show families why some services lag despite good intentions.