Submission for the Senate Committee Inquiry into the capability

and culture of the NDIA

Submission written by Nicky Reid,

My comments on the culture of the NDIA with reference to its operational processes and procedures

My 20 year old daughter has been an NDIS participant since August 2019. In this time, has had an initial plan, an Internal Review of her initial plan, and two subsequent annual plan meetings with two different NDIS planners.

  last annual plan meeting was conducted on 17 December 2021. From that meeting a

number of issues arose, leading me to conclude the NDIA’s organisational culture and capability is at the present time, poor.

The issues I encountered in annual plan meeting are:

• The meeting was conducted via Teams, and despite a request that the planner turn on her camera so we could see her, she refused.

• The planner was clearly not prepared for the meeting and had no familiarity with current plan nor her now changing circumstances. The planner opened the meeting by asking if she could rollover my daughter’s plan, I explained that was moving from school to a post-school environment and would require additional funding as outlined in the 11 reports from her service providers both myself and Support Coordinator had submitted to the NDIA prior to the meeting. The planner denied these reports had been submitted until we insisted the planner identify the reports in file

• I briefly outlined the reports to the planner, but the planner didn’t appear to be listening, nor did she want to enter a discussion about needs. Three times during the meeting the planner had to be reminded that had left school, would be moving onto a post-school environment, and would be attending 20 hours of education in 2022.

• The planner closed the meeting after 45 minutes, without asking questions about leaving Support Coordinator and I with the sense that she did not want to have a constructive discussion about needs.

• has two disabilities, each with equal impact on her life. The planner denied
  

  physical disability was recorded on her file. This has been discussed at length with and recorded by, both the person conducting the internal review in January 2020 and by planner in December 2020 and in January 2021 for her 2021 plan. Both the Support Coordinator and I requested the planner reach out to us to confirm

Page Text

   appropriate documentation was included on        file to confirm her physical

disability. This has not occurred since the meeting, despite reminder emails to the planner and the NDIA.

 f.      new goals were outlined in a letter to the NDIA, these goals have not been
 updated in her new plan.

g.       plan was released on 24 December 2021, with a funding increase for one part
   of her plan only – core funding for a course to improve      employability – the rest
   of her plan was rolled over. This is despite providing detailed timetables of
    activities and subsequent support worker needs, and detailed reports from 10 other
   service providers outlining additional reasonable and necessary therapy needs for
   her physical disabilities.

The subsequent impacts our experience had on us trying to access information, support and services from the Agency

The key relationship between a participant and the Agency is one of trust. The NDIA trusts that the participant will use their funding effectively to meet their goals, and the participant must trust that the NDIA will listen to and fairly consider a participants’ concerns and reasonable and necessary needs. The greatest impact our experience in this planning meeting had on us is a loss of trust in the Agency.

 funding was reduced in her first annual plan meeting (held in December 2020), but I

felt the planner had listened carefully to our concerns, read the service provider reports and been willing to discuss needs. That is in complete contrast to the planner’s actions in our meeting on 17 December 2021.

Having a planner refusing to be visible in a meeting makes it difficult to build rapport with that planner. It was also evident the planner did not listen to Support Coordinator and myself during the meeting.

Given the planner did not contact us after the meeting despite agreeing to do so, did not update new goals in her new plan and the timing of the release of plan, I find it hard to trust that reports were engaged with substantively by the planner.

In this case the planner’s actions make it difficult for me to trust that the NDIA has acted in best interests.

This has also led to a great deal of frustration from both her parents and her service providers, an enormous amount of work was done by ourselves and therapists to eensure a successful transition her from school. The NDIA requests and pays for reports from a participant’s service providers, it is a failure of the Agencies systems to ignore these reports.

Recommendations for Improvements

I recommend the following actions be taken by the Agency in relation to planning meetings:

• Time be given to planners to read all reports submitted by participants prior to planning meetings, so meetings can be used effectively to discuss participant needs.

• Systems be put in place to ensure planners complete follow up actions and respond to participants when they agree to do so.

• Draft plans be released to participants prior to plan finalisation.

• Reasons be given to participants when additional funding requests are not met. These reasons must be in direct response to funding requests and demonstrate that participant reports have been read and considered.

• Planners must be visible to participants in planning meetings.