NDIS Green Paper 4: Demand, Supply & the NDIS - A Matter of Words?

Abstract

This study was funded and undertaken by Professor David Gilchrist, convener of the Not-forprofits UWA Research Team at the University of Western Australia. The Not-for-profits UWA Research Team is a multi-disciplinary academic group focusing on developing research outcomes that are intended to meet the needs of Australia's Not-for-profit and charitable organisations, policy makers, governments and commentators. These research outcomes are intended to be industry-ready-that is, they are tools and commentary that are based on high quality research while being focused on implementation and practical supports.

See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil: The grey literature and Australia's failure to address change in the National Disability Insurance Scheme

“…As can be expected, they are highly contested elements of the Scheme. Research and opinion pertaining to the planning process was plentiful in the reports with 29 reports covering at least one aspect of the Scheme's planning processes, including plan consistency and quality (Gilchrist, 2017; JSC, 2014, 2018a, 2019b; National Commission of Audit (NCOA), 2014; PC, 2017b; Souza & Lambides, 2019; Stantons International, 2016; Whalan et al, 2014); preplanning and the delays of review requests (JSC, 2015; Manthorpe, 2018; Tune, 2019); the interface between the NDIS with other disability services (JSC, 2018a, 2019a; PC, 2019b; WA Auditor General's Office, [WA AGO], 2020); and Information Communication Technology [ICT] and data collection (Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), 2016; Gilchrist et al, 2020; JSC, 2018a; PC, 2017b; PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 2016).…”

“…In practice, however, the Scheme's implementation issues have been seen to restrict participant actioning of choice and control in various ways (CADR, 2013; JSC, 2015). Notable restrictions identified in the grey literature focussing on thin markets identified limits to choice through lack of providers (ACIL Allen Consulting, 2017; JSC, 2018b; Smyth et al, 2016; PC, 2017a; Reeders et al, 2019); the resulting underutilisation of plan funding (Gilchrist et al, 2019; JSC, 2018a; Mavromaras et al, 2018; PC, 2019a, 2019b; Warr et al, 2017); insufficient housing, accommodation and supported independent living (SIL; AHURI, 2018; Gilchrist & Emery, 2020; JSC, 2016, 2020; PricewaterhouseCoopers & Summer Foundation, 2017); and the unique issues facing people with psychosocial disability (Australian Civil Society Shadow Report Working Group [ACS], 2019; Hancock et al, 2019; JSC, 2017a, 2017b, 2019a).…”

“…The NDS (2017) noted a clear lack of market data—such as that informing sector demand, average operational costs and market maturation information—available to inform service providers and ensure timely, sustainable and effective service delivery within the Scheme. Gilchrist and Emery (2020) and Gilchrist (2020) argued for the development of a national, integrated and co‐developed data strategy using existing and new data to better predict/recognise signs of Scheme unsustainability. Indeed, a national scope would ensure that sample size requirements would be met, market development opportunities are identified, and more rigorous evaluation can be conducted on Scheme components.…”

“…Another recurring issue was the housing of young people with disability in aged care facilities, hospitals or custodial environments due to unavailability in housing (Gilchrist & Emery, 2020; JSC, 2020; see also JSC, 2016, 2018a, 2019b). In their Green Paper, Gilchrist and Emery (2020) comment that despite mediation, the underlying drivers have not been addressed. The paper cites Scheme transition delays, insufficient housing stock and the unclear lines of responsibility for housing provision between government agencies as drivers.…”

“…Substantive examinations of supported independent living (SIL) were only observed in two reports (Gilchrist & Emery, 2020; JSC, 2020). The JSC (2020) enquiry concluded that the approval process was undermining participant access to supported independent living (SIL) funding as significant resources were consumed in applying.…”