Short report: Patterns of US federal autism research funding during 2017-2019.

Kupis et al. (2021) counted how every federal autism research dollar was spent from 2017-2019.

They sorted each grant into topics like biology, intervention, services, or lifespan studies.

The team then compared the money split to what autism community advisors had asked for.

Only 5 % of funds went to services research.

Lifespan issues got just 2.5 %.

Most money still flowed to lab biology and treatment trials, even though advisors wanted more real-life studies.

Gitimoghaddam et al. (2022) looked at 770 ABA studies from the same years. They found lots of small, hopeful projects but almost no control groups and zero quality-of-life data. The tiny 5 % services slice Lauren found helps explain why the field lacks those bigger, tougher studies.

Leigh et al. (2015) forecast that autism will cost the US about 461 billion dollars by 2025. Lauren’s audit shows the research budget is not following the money where it is actually spent—on services across the lifespan.

Tsiplova et al. (2023) spell out what happens next: when payers must decide what to cover, they need solid cost data that the 5 % budget simply has not produced.

If you write grants, choose projects, or teach funders, use these numbers. Point out that less than eight cents of every autism research dollar touches real services or adult life. Push for proposals that fill the gap—transportation, job support, parent training, or cost-of-care studies. More balance in the budget means stronger evidence you can use on Monday morning.