The NDIS Wants Participants to Spend Their Funding Correctly. So Why Are Support Coordinators Being Removed?
Every week, we tell people "no."
No, unfortunately the NDIS doesn't usually fund that.
No, that recommendation isn't likely to meet the legislation.
No, that invoice shouldn't be claimed.
No, that's considered a mainstream support.
No, your Core funding can't simply be used for anything.
No, buying the cheapest option doesn't always represent value for money.
No, Facebook isn't the best place to get NDIS advice.
For many people, that might come as a surprise.
There is a common misconception that Support Coordinators simply connect participants with providers.
If only it were that simple..
The reality is that Support Coordinators are one of the Scheme's strongest safeguards against participants using their funding inappropriately, engaging unsuitable providers or missing opportunities that could genuinely improve their lives.
Yet, increasingly, participants who would once have received Support Coordination are being told they don't need it because a Local Area Coordinator (LAC) can assist instead.
And I think we're asking the wrong question.
The question shouldn't be, "Can LACs replace Support Coordinators?"
The question should be:
What happens to participants—and ultimately the Scheme—when the people who teach participants how to use their funding appropriately are no longer there?
Support Coordination Is About More Than Finding Providers
According to the NDIA, Support Coordinators help participants:
understand and implement their NDIS plan
connect with providers and community supports
build the skills and confidence to manage their supports
increase independence over time.
That's absolutely true.
But it's only part of the story.
Support Coordination isn't about handing someone a list of providers.
If that were the case, Google could replace us tomorrow.
Instead, we spend our days helping participants understand one of Australia's most complex funding systems.
We explain:
what funding can and cannot be used for
the difference between Core, Capacity Building and Capital funding
what flexibility exists within a plan
what "reasonable and necessary" actually means
when evidence is required
which supports are likely to be considered mainstream responsibilities
how to prepare for future plan reassessments.
We don't just help people spend money. We help people spend it appropriately.
The Work Nobody Sees
This week alone, our team has:
helped families understand conflicting recommendations from multiple therapists
researched providers based on individual needs rather than simply availability and who is closest
contacted numerous organisations to determine capacity before presenting options to participants
organised multidisciplinary meetings involving therapists, support workers and families
reviewed reports to ensure they clearly described functional impact before submission to the NDIA
contacting those same providers for amendments to their reports so it’s in line with the participants circumstances and NDIS guidelines and legislation
monitored participant budgets to reduce the risk of funding running out prematurely
assisted providers to understand participant goals
helped families prepare evidence for future plan reassessments.
aaaaaand the list goes on and on..
This work often happens behind the scenes.
It isn't always visible.
But it is often the difference between a participant simply having an NDIS plan and actually benefiting from it.
Education Is One of the Strongest Forms of Fraud Prevention
The NDIS is placing an increasing emphasis on protecting Scheme integrity.
So it should!
Every dollar lost to fraud, misuse or inappropriate claiming is a dollar unavailable to participants who genuinely need support.
But here's the conversation I don't think we're having.
Support Coordinators spend countless hours educating participants and providers about appropriate use of their funding.
Every week we explain why something isn't claimable.
We explain why another system should fund a support.
We help participants understand legislation rather than relying on misinformation shared online.
Sometimes those conversations are disappointing for participants.
Sometimes they are difficult.
But they are necessary.
Education prevents mistakes.
Education reduces inappropriate spending.
Education protects participants from unintentionally breaching the NDIS rules.
Support Coordinators are not compliance officers. But every day, we contribute to the integrity of the Scheme by helping participants & providers make informed decisions before money is spent.
Meanwhile, the System Is Becoming More Complex
Participants are expected to understand:
changing operational guidelines
replacement support rules
value for money principles
evidence requirements
legislative tests
provider responsibilities
service agreements
budget flexibility.
Even experienced professionals spend years learning these concepts and we learn every day.
Yet participants and families are increasingly expected to navigate them independently. For many people, that simply isn't realistic.
The Financial Reality
Now, this is going to put some people off - stay with me.. The sustainability of Support Coordination is becoming a serious concern.
The maximum hourly price limit for Level 2 Support Coordination has remained unchanged since July 2019.
Since then:
SCHADS Award minimum wages have increased by approximately 29.8%
employer superannuation has increased from 9.5% to 12%
insurance costs have increased
software costs have increased
compliance obligations have expanded
registration and audit costs have continued to rise.
The cost of delivering quality Support Coordination has increased significantly while the amount providers are permitted to charge has not.
Across the sector, coordinators are often managing extraordinarily high caseloads because providers are trying to remain financially sustainable.
When coordinators have too many participants, everyone loses.
Participants wait longer for responses.
Providers struggle to collaborate.
Small issues become crises.
Families feel unsupported.
Experienced coordinators leave the sector.
Eventually, participants and other providers lose access to the knowledge and guidance that helps their plans achieve meaningful outcomes.
Now, to be perfectly frank, this isn't about businesses. And yes, Rosie Disability Services is a business. Businesses need to remain financially sustainable to continue to operate.
That isn't controversial.
But this conversation isn't really about providers. It's about participants.
It's about whether families can continue accessing experienced professionals who understand the Scheme, coordinate complex support teams, identify risks before they escalate and help participants use their funding effectively and appropriately.
An NDIS plan is only valuable if someone knows how to use it.
We Need to Stop Asking Whether Support Coordinators Can Be Replaced
LACs play an essential role within the NDIS.
Their work is important, and many go above and beyond for participants every day.
But their role is different.
Their resources are different.
Their responsibilities are different.
Support Coordinators don't replace LACs, and LACs don't replace Support Coordinators.
Both roles exist because participants have different levels of need.
As someone who has worked as an LAC and now works alongside participants, families and providers every day, I believe we need to have an honest conversation about the future of Support Coordination.
Because every day we reduce opportunities for participants to access guidance, education and coordination, we increase the likelihood that people will struggle to navigate the Scheme alone.
Support Coordination isn't just about connecting people to services.
It's about helping people understand their rights, make informed decisions, build capacity, use public funding responsibly and achieve the outcomes the NDIS was designed to deliver.
If we genuinely want participants to use their funding well, achieve meaningful outcomes and build greater independence, then we should be asking not how to reduce Support Coordination—but how to ensure the people who need it can continue to access it.
That conversation is long overdue.