One of the more controversial announcements made by the NDIA last year was the introduction of a universal Support Needs Assessment (SNA), scheduled to commence in the middle of this year. This announcement received mixed reviews across the sector, with many people sceptical of the Agency’s ability to deliver on what has been promised.
Let’s take some time to review what we know about the proposed new planning framework and what to watch out for as this reform progresses.
What Is the Proposed Support Needs Assessment?
The NDIA is partnering with the University of Melbourne and the Centre for Disability Studies to develop the Support Needs Assessment. The tool is reported to be in the final stages of development and almost ready for trial.
While many people in the sector are aware of the proposal to utilise the I-CAN assessment tool (Classification and Assessment of Support Needs), few appear to be aware that the NDIA will use three tools combined to generate an overall Support Needs Assessment Report (SNAR). This report will provide the data used to determine a participant’s overall plan budget.
In describing its collaboration with the Centre for Disability Studies, the NDIA has stated:
“The I-CAN is the gold standard of available, validated needs assessment tools. It has been developed over more than 20 years in the Australian context and tested through multiple research studies across a range of disability groups. It is strengths-based and built on the globally recognised International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.”
The Three Components of the Support Needs Assessment(SNA)
In addition to the I-CAN, the SNA will include:
- A Personal and Environmental Circumstances Questionnaire (PEC)for all participants
- A set of targeted assessments where high-cost assistive technology, home modifications or disability-related health supports are required
The Personal and Environmental Circumstances Questionnaire focuses on the participant as an individual, their supports and their environment. It examines:
- Existing formal and informal supports
- How effectively those supports meet the participant’s needs
- Where the participant lives geographically
- Whether there is service undersupply or isolation
- The availability and sustainability of informal supports
Where appropriate, targeted assessments related to high-cost assistive technology, housing or health supports can also be included in the overall assessment process.
Sector Commentary and Key Benefits
Dr George Taleporos recently interviewed Aaron Verlin (Acting Deputy CEO of the NDIA), and Professor Jason Thompson from the University of Melbourne on the Summer Foundation’s Reasonable & Necessary podcast.
Both speakers suggested that the SNA would be a fairer way to determine participant support needs by measuring functional capacity alongside available supports and environmental factors. They identified several benefits, including:
- A consistent and reliable assessment framework
- Standardised allocation of funding
- Improved equity for new applicants and existing participants
This is particularly significant for applicants with limited financial resources who have historically struggled to access the Scheme due to the high cost of assessments required to evidence eligibility. The SNA is also expected to result in more consistent plan outcomes across Australia, regardless of disability type or location.
Another important benefit not discussed during the podcast is that many current access assessments focus primarily on eligibility rather than the complexity of ongoing support needs. I have seen many Functional Capacity Assessments that successfully established access but failed to convey the complexity of the participant’s support requirements due to a participant’s limited personal finances and a narrow focus on eligibility.
Training and Delivery of the SNA
Mr Verlin (Acting Deputy CEO of the NDIA )outlined the extensive consultation process that preceded the development of the SNA and confirmed this consultation would continue throughout implementation.
Before rollout, the NDIA will work with the University of Melbourne to develop a training package targeting non-allied health professionals with appropriate skills and experience.
The NDIA will initially recruit a team of accredited allied health clinicians who will train and supervise the assessment workforce. These clinicians must hold allied health qualifications and be registered with recognised professional bodies. Once established, assessors will be recruited.
While tertiary qualifications will not be mandatory for assessors, those without formal qualifications will need to demonstrate extensive sector experience or lived experience of disability.
I was encouraged to see that required assessor skillsets include strengths in:
- Communicating with people with complex communication needs
- Working with non-verbal participants
- Conducting trauma-informed conversations
Mr Verlin noted that while allied health qualifications are helpful, a deep understanding of disability through lived or professional experience is equally valuable. He pointed to the customised I-CAN already in use within the Disability Support for Older Australians (DSOA) program, which has been successfully delivered by both clinical and non-clinical staff for more than four years.
Separation of Assessment and Funding Decisions
One of the most significant changes proposed is the separation of assessment from funding allocation.
Data from the SNA will be fed into a computer program that determines a band of support, outlining typical funding parameters for participants with similar needs. This approach has been promoted as a way to increase transparency and fairness in funding decisions.
However, this is also the source of much of the controversy. If a participant is unhappy with their plan, they may appeal to the ART. If the appeal is upheld, the participant will receive a new Support Needs Assessment. The ART will not have jurisdiction over the contents of the plan itself and cannot make recommendations on the participant’s supports.
This limitation is a major concern for many in the sector.
When Will the New Approach Commence?
The NDIA will take a staged implementation approach, beginning with trial sites and regular reviews before rolling out nationally.
As the I-CAN was developed for adults, trials will begin with participants aged over 17 with less complex disabilities. National rollout is expected to commence from mid-2026, with a transition period of four to five years.
The transition strategy is expected to be announced shortly, with early indications suggesting rollout may begin in July this year.
In Summary
In theory, this proposal is an improvement on the current system where funding decisions are made by NDIS planners and delegates who often have limited engagement with participants. With s100 requests and ART applications doubling in the past year alone, the system clearly needs reform.
Overall, I see this reform as positive. The current system clearly isn’t working and is incredibly inefficient and inequitable. Collaboration with the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Disability Studies is a significant step forward.
My greatest concern is not the tool itself, but how effectively it will be implemented. This will ultimately determine whether the SNA delivers on its promise or becomes another missed opportunity.
How Software Can Help
Support Coordination Software helps you document participant complexity, capture functional impacts, manage evidence and maintain compliance during times of sector reform.
All subscribers are part of a Community of Support Coordinators with access to Masterclasses and Communities of Practice, where we unpack reforms like the Support Needs Assessment and share practical strategies to support participants through change.
Want to find out more about how Support Coordination Software helps you navigate NDIS reforms with confidence? Click here to book a demo or sign up for a no obligation 14-day free trial.